You won't know what hit you!
We all remember that March day in 2020 when Chuck Schumer broke all political norms and threatened justices on the Supreme Court by name. This past week somebody associated with the Court leaked an opinion (a majority opinion) on the always controversial Roe v Wade Decision. Schumer's threat was just the first phase in what we can now see are democratic efforts to bully the High Court. This week's evil leaking of a future Court decision has now led to leftist groups like "Ruth Sent Us" to publish the supposed home addresses of Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The DC police have erected fencing around the Supreme Court as the nation braces for more left wing violence. Joe Biden has yet to condemn the leak. In the meantime leftist claim that Conservatives hate women, yet they can't define what a woman is.
The Week:
The Ministry of Truth: Five days ago, we learned from left wing ideologue Alejandro Mayorkas that the Biden administration had secretly created a "Disinformation Board" to be headed by a radical leftist. He was confronted by Sen Rand Paul:
The ideologue would not answer, claiming that Paul was giving him "vague" hypothetical situations.
King Maker: J.D. Vance won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Ohio on Tuesday, with a huge bump thanks to the support of Donald Trump. Those who Trump have supported have all performed well. The real test comes now in states like Georgia, where Trump candidates face long odds. Donald Trump does not support candidates based on ideology, but seemingly for personal reasons. J D Vance is a populist candidate, who will be good for the people of Ohio.
Massive Selloff: "On Thursday, the Dow and S&P both fell more than 3% and the Nasdaq dropped 5%, wiping out the euphoria that reigned on Wall Street after Jerome Powell said the Federal Reserve wasn't “actively considering” raising rates by 0.75 percentage point."
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-jobs-report-05-06-2022?mod=hp_lead_pos7
Too little, too late from the Fed.
Fighting in Mariupol: " A third rescue operation is underway in Mariupol to help the remaining Ukrainian civilians trapped inside a besieged steel plant, the Red Cross told CBS News. Ukraine's military says Russian troops are now inside the plant — the last stronghold of the city's defenders."
"Hundreds of civilians remain trapped in the middle of what has become a fight to the death at the steel works in Mariupol. The civilian rescue operation is underway following the successful evacuation of more than 400 civilians last week."
https://news.yahoo.com/rescue-operation-underway-mariupol-russian-230624920.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
What have we learned?
Progressives continue to show everyone their true nature. This week there were two leaks. One from the once sacred chambers of the Supreme Court and the other was one of many from the Jan 6th Committee. Leftist groups are planning to harass certain justices in their homes and maybe Christian denominations on Mother's Day. Joe Biden tells protestors to be peaceful, while refusing to condemn the leak nor telling the protestors to avoid the homes of justices. Leftist teachers have tried to hide what they have been teaching young children but thanks to the pandemic they have been exposed. A leftist DA in LA refuses to prosecute crimes and now even an assault on Dave Chappelle will most likely go unpunished.
Yesterday we saw the left exposed in all it's anger and hate. Authority was overruled by leftist volunteers.
Cartoon of the Week:
Honorable Mention:
Tags
Who is online
704 visitors
“Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication, doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade.” .....Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Peter Doocy:
"These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices."
"I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. We want it to be peaceful and certainly the president would want people's privacy respected."
Well, to be honest the First Amendment does give that right.
Seems to me had the White House come out and said 'Don't go to their homes to protest' then the government would have been guilty of abridging the First Amendment. I don't like the idea of protests occurring at anybody's private home and would rather they only play out in front of the government buildings, but the First Amendment does not specify location. All that can really be done is have a police presence around to try to prevent any illegal activity during the protests and to stop any such activity if it starts. It sucks for the innocents like the children and neighbors but that's about all that can be done legally.
Good to know. Some here have argued that it is reserved for public locations.
18 U.S. Code Section 1507 specifically prohibits pickets and parades “with the intent of influencing any judge in the discharge of his duty” in or near a courtroom or “in or near a residence.”
Look at that, this falls under 18 USC, Chapter 73 "Obstruction of Justice"
And you gave the reason:
Their lack of stepping up to condemn it, to me, indicates their support of it.
Yes it does. Can we expect the DOJ to enforce it?
It's sad that this type of intimidation has been allowed to go on. Protesting at the White House is one thing they have a fence and security so there's little reason for the President or Staff to feel intimidated but at most private residences they have no defense. When Schumer says, "You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” is that not intimidation, certainly sounds like a threat to me. In the last decade we've seen politicians accosted in restaurants, at home, and on the street and now the left wants to include targeting Judges too. I don't care if they're Left or Right Politicians and Judges shouldn't have to worry if tonight is the night the mob is going to kick down their door and kill them or whether there's a crazed Assassin using that group of protesters at the end of their driveway as cover. How can we have a Democracy if we allow mob intimidation of our Elected Officials.
They should be enforcing it.
One thing’s for sure.
We dodged a bullet not getting Garland on the SCOTUS.
POS won’t do his job.
Garland does his job. But it is only against Jan 6th rioters; and parents that dare to question what public schools are teaching their kids.
90% of the rioters from the BLM/Antifa riots are released w/o charges. He is completely avoiding Hunter's laptop- and Joe's pay for play with China, Ukraine, and Russian oligarchs.
In other words he is a worthless partisan POS that needs to be impeached as soon as Republicans take the House and Senate.
None of that is true.
You just make it up as you go
So we are threatening Supreme Court Justices now.
Somebody has bee reading Chinese and N. Korean doctrine. I don't see that ending well.
They've tried to hide it but it's slowly being exposed and these predators are being fired.
Like what you see?
I wonder how the voters feel?
The blundering fools that voted for this think it's a good thing. Well, only because they've shown they can't think for themselves and have been told what to think.
Lacking votes, Dems plot message on abortion
http:// hill.cm/GuzOE0g
Agreed. And I think it's an excellent process for an election year. The Democrats plan to use the voting in their campaigning for November. Problem I see is that regardless of their outrage over this, I do not believe that abortion rights will be the most important issues that voters consider for the election. I still believe that inflation and crime will be of higher importance come November.
But the asshole in me would kind of like to see SCOTUS come out in June with an opinion that retains Roe v Wade and have the Republicans throw the freaking out and protests back in the face of the Democrats.
That's a big problem. I don't think anything can help them this time.
JUST IN: Pelosi announces $45,000 minimum salary for House staffers
http:// hill.cm/mDQg47l
Gee Nancy, what about all those unpaid interns some of who are on your staff?
'YOU HAVE NO CLUE': The Kentucky senator challenged the embattled DHS secretary about government telling people what is true.
https:// fxn.ws/3w4QUap
Gee.. is the Biden administration taking a page out of the Trump playbook and expanding on it? And here I thought that Biden wanted to remove all thoughts and ideas from the previous administration....
"I love the uneducated, they believe everything we tell them"
I don't know where the quote came from, but the so-called "educated" aren't too bright either. I find they are the most easily led.
The quote was actually 'I love the poorly educated'. Of course in today's partisan world the Democrats only used that part of the entire statement. You can find the entire statement cleared up by Snopes.
I remember.
They snipped off what they wanted and smeared half the country.
And that's exactly what the leaders of stupid would want you to believe.
The "leaders of stupid?"
Would that be the professors who left the University of Frankfurt and escaped Nazi Germany and found refuge at Columbia University?
"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated," DJT
There is no doubt who the leaders of stupid are. Only their die hard members refuse to accept the obvious. Those pushing "alternative facts", downplayed the virus, lying about their motives when pushing their choices for the supreme court, lying about the vaccine, believing incredible stupid conspiracy theories despite all contrary evidence, ridiculing higher education because they're so fucking stupid they can't stand it so have to invent a new narrative where "gut" intelligence is somehow superior to an actual study of facts and reality. Of course those leading the stupid are busy telling their followers how smart they are as they strip them of their cash and freedoms in favor of their religious conservative brand of fascism. I can only feel sorry for such weak minded suckers and saps.
Didn't read the whole statement given at 6.1.2????
The stupid voted for stupid in 2020.
Here is their chance to make amends. Have they suffered enough? Let's see?
Democrats clean up among those with less than a high school education.
But, of course, you want to call them stupid based on solely on their education level. So I invite you to go to those precincts with the highest level of high school dropouts and call them all stupid.
Are you unleashing facts again?
Naw. The stupid voted for stupid in 2016 and look where that got us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When has that ever happened?
From him or you?
Because of the Russians / S
Just about all the time.
Can you dispute the fact he revealed?
Did you even know about it?
Nah, a good propagandist cuts comments like that up as to best support the narrative they are trying to brainwash the useful idiots with.
What fact?
Uh .... kleptog ..... klepper ...... kleptictitter ....... uh next question ....
The one we were just talking about. btw what happened to your other comment?
I think we'll take the high road.
Let's stick to the topics, okay Tony?
"I think we'll take the high road."
Something else I've never seen here.
Remember what Frank said "The guys who fly straight are the guys who last in this business!"
I guess today will be the first time then.
oooo... and then you forgot your little friend....
The man who bought you dinner:
"Remember what Frank said "The guys who fly straight are the guys who last in this business!"
Yeah Tony Montana! What he said!
Always remember what Frank Lopez said to you in Scarface!
Wise advice among cocaine smugglers
[ Deleted ]
Nope.
That's where you reside
That was your idiotic comment to me.
Did you mean to actually "Mean" something ?
Biden smeared half the country with his sick and twisted assault upon MAGA citizens that came out of his demented mind.
Like much of what comes out of Trumps mouth he lied when he said "We won with the highly educated" and "we won with the young", the only truth in his statement was that he won with the old, evangelicals and the poorly educated.
Trump clearly won with old poorly educated white evangelicals which are clearly still his solid base of easily manipulated gullible supporters. That also explains why a large majority of Republicans believe wild fantasy Qanon conspiracy theories, they're just not educated enough to see through the lies and love to have their ears tickled with lies that confirm their deep seated biases and prejudices.
Why is that moron Rand, a glorified optometrist, grilling anyone over anything?
He's such an idiot!
Because he is also a US Senator!
The RED WAVE is coming. The lefties won't know what hit them.
"In the meantime leftist claim that Conservatives hate women, yet they can't define what a woman is."
The lefties are quiet today. They've been getting hammered lately.
I’m still trying to figure out the recent media outrage about my father possibly wanting to target Mexican drug cartel manufacturing facilities in Mexico… Is that supposed to be a bad thing???....Donald Trump Jr
Republicans in the Louisiana House advanced a bill Wednesday that would classify abortion as homicide and allow prosecutors to criminally charge patients.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/05/louisiana-republicans-advance-bill-that-would-charge-abortion-homicide/?
It seems that they are angry with old Vic...
I think they're gonna get a lot angrier.
"It seems that they are angry with old Vic...
I think they're gonna get a lot angrier."
You wildly exaggerate your influence and estimation
Perhaps.
How are you feeling today?
No perhaps involved. [Deleted]
I'm just fine. I deal in reality.
I'm glad to hear it
Sure ya are!
Abe Haynes nailed it - "Liberals are like the abused partner in a relationship who thinks they can appeal to reason and change their abusive partner. But conservatives, like abusers, aren't gonna change. They like who they are."
More like abused as children, who want to punish the rest of us, as adults.
They wear their deplorability as a badge of honor.
The refusal of the White House to condemn the doxing of Supreme Court justices private residences shows you all you need to know about their hypocrisy over January 6th.
Yes, nothing.
They are endorsing illegal activity to pressure a branch of government in its performance of it's duty
Of course, norms only matter when Trump breaks them, right? The thing is we all know how you would react if conservative groups were doing this to liberal justices over, say a second amendment case, and Trump refused to condemn it.
Remember...anything these deranged left wing thugs do...can be done to them.
So doxxing the liberal judges homes will be acceptable...right?
What morons. Getting pregnant is a choice....one that involves another life.
Only if one wants too.
And if one prefers not to, they have this thing called "the pill."
And many a 'pro' lifer would like to ban those also but that would never happen, no slippery slopes there and all that sort of thing that 2nd Amd. folks scream about ... @!@
FALSE.
I think everybody is in favor of contraceptives. Look what it did for "women."
Why did you put women in quotation marks?
That almost got by everyone.
Very good Trout.
The reason I did that is because I believe the pill changed the nature of women. Do you know what I mean?
Yet nobody wants to go there.
My question remains unanswered.
I really don't know what your meaning is but it did change how women deal with the world these days. They can have a career and children. They don't have to get married to be "happy". They can be themselves.
Ok, I'll go along with that. So you and I agree on this one?
I guess so. Is there something you wanted to add?
You mean the part about women no longer needing to be careful about the men they chose?
I think I've discussed that in the past. We'll just agree that it changed the nature of women in various ways.
Don't lump all women together, Vic. Many of us chose good men who are good husbands and good fathers. Some women are not man-smart just like some men are not woman-smart
I'd say it's given women the same freedom that men have always had. Some men might resent that, I suppose, but that says more about them than it does about women.
Or a condom.
I knew a woman who once told me that. Her sister hated her for having an affair with her husband. Her boss's wife had a detective following her. Last but not least I had a terrible dream about killing her. Women can't be men.
That doesn't always serve men well.
I don't and you're right.
So she was every bit as guilty as the sister's husband, eh? He seems to get off pretty lightly here.
Dreams of violence against women, Vic?
I guess you'd have to know her.
Dreams of violence against women, Vic?
It convinced me to get her out of my system. Sometimes we all need a little shock to come to our senses.
She must have been something, to prevent a man from making his own decisions. Because that's the only way she could be any more guilty than he was.
Shouldn't that be a foot in the mouth?
Why did you hate this woman and want to kill her? Was she cheating on you?
I doubt there was ever another like her.
Name one?
Men have never had the choice of not to be a father after a pregnancy has started. If the woman does not want the baby she can have it aborted and the man has no say even if he wants the baby and wants to raise it by himself if necessary. If she does want it, she just continues with the pregnancy and if the man dies not want to be a father that's too bad. He is still required to foot the bill for the next 18-21 years.
And men have never been medically affected by pregnancy. They have, however, quite frequently dodged the responsibilities of fatherhood after creating a child, leaving the medical, physical, emotional, and financial problems to the women and children they've left. That is why women have had to be more careful about the men they choose - there was no recourse for a poor choice. Men have generally been much more free to have no-strings-attached sex than women have. Now women can do the same, and some men resent that, as shown in preceding comments.
You consider being financially responsible for over 20 years no strings. Even if they somehow get out of paying for some time, men can still be taken to court to be forced to pay. Other government agencies can also take their funds.
Many were never financially responsible.
And even more were never on the hook for the actual work of child-rearing. They weren't doing 2 AM feedings, or changing diapers, or calming colicky babies, or going to doctor's appointments, or doing endless laundry, or calming teething babies, or childproofing kitchens, or reading to baby, or helping baby learn to walk or feed him or herself.
That was the women.
Contraception and abortion has given women the same freedom from the labors of parenthood men have always had, if they choose not to become mothers after sex.
Why does that threaten you?
And if a man wants the responsibility of that parenthood (and there are those that have) the are denied that ability because they would rather kill her child than have it live and thrive with the father. And don't go out into how she has to deal with being pregnant. It is not anyone's fault that that is how nature works
The father has no right to force her to risk her life. Women are not your broodmares.
The father has no rights at all. You just want him to be your cash cow
In your own words
Not really. Our species is not hard wired to be monogamous. If monogamy was our default mode, then we would happily mate for life and be content - end of story. Men would have never enacted all of the laws/rules to punish (even kill) women when they are caught having sex outside of marriage because it wouldn't ever have happened.
I will agree that some things have changed since women have more education and more opportunities to have careers if they want them.
In today's world, men and women have more freedom to openly choose the type of lifestyle that works for them. Some people will never marry, but maintain a monogamous relationship for the majority of their lives.
Other people will marry and divorce numerous times for various reasons including mental/physical abuse and even just sheer frustration of trying to maintain a relationship with someone they have little to nothing in common with. These people may or may not be capable of monogamy. Regardless, no one should be forced to live their life with a partner they dislike or fear.
And that's all that matters to some men. What serves them . . . or who
“Getting pregnant is a choice....one that involves another life.”
The focus from the right is on the unborn, the focus from the left is on the woman…how utterly insensitive of those passing draconian measures on the woman…conveniently ignoring that they are the third part of the equation.
The focus in the Roe decision was totally on the woman, as if she was deciding to wash her hair.
“The focus in the Roe decision was totally on the woman…”
No, the focus of Roe was on the freedom to make one’s individual decisions…free from outside influence, coercion, or legislation. A rather fundamental right if one truly appreciates our system of governance.
Whatever it was...It was wrong.
In any and all aspects of life? Ya really wanna open that can of worms back up?
Are there freedoms you object to?
Not at all. Just remembering the last two years Mask shaming/Covid/Vaccine
That mask shaming went both ways. People were mocked for wearing one and people were shamed for not wearing one.
Pffft. According to you.
Agreed. I didn't point to either "side". Just the fact that everyone had a different idea of "freedom of choice".
That's how you and certain other 'men' view it. Probably certain women too. But that's not true. You have no clue what a woman is going through.
Choice is staying pregnant or not. This is something I disagree with those I usually side with
I hear ya.
The lowest thing I can imagine is an adult woman saying I've decided to terminate my pregnancy.
but if she can't do that is she really free?
The lowest thing I can imagine is a man telling his pregnant girlfriend, "See ya, Baby!"
That was the problem with Roe. It never considered the life of the unborn along with finding a "right" that didn't exist in the Constitution.
That is pretty low. Let us strip away all the things you think are emergencies like rape, the possible death of the mother, etc.
So now we only have a healthy adult woman who is pregnant and at some time decides to terminate a pregnancy.
What is the moral argument for that? There is no valid Constitutional one.
Especially if you're a 12 year old raped by your father, right?
The right to vote isn't in the Constitition.
That's a big problem that happens to millions /S
Vic,
The assumption you make is that everyone agrees when life begins. The fact is that nothing could be farther from the truth.
I'm not making that assumption. Nobody knows that. I have tried to make it a Constitutional argument rather than a moral one. If this goes back to the states, people will be able to vote for what they want.
Again, you are assuming we all have the same belief about when life starts. We don't. So what this does, it forces a minority of people's beliefs down the throats of the majority.
The people will not have their say until every representative from their state has been evaluated. Until then, we live with the whim of the states and the court.
No it does not. It will be left to the states. Many states already have laws on abortion.
Ginsburg was right. It should have gone to the states in the beginning and we wouldn't have all this division. Seven unelected justices shouldn't be making that decision
then we will have patchwork and confusion on a very important issue
Only a few states have laws. Many more have trigger laws. These states have Gov and representatives who never thought that the court would reverse itself. Now you will have women who will be stuck with traveling literally over a thousand miles or worse, being charged with murder. Women as second-class citizens. I am horrified personally.
So you want a federal law? Chuck Schumer is trying to do that. You get 60 votes in the Senate and you get it.
You have many women who disagree with you. They are pro-life. You just said a minority shouldn't decide. Here is the chance for the majority to decide.
You know I have never seen so much quoting of RBG by conservatives, which is kind of ironic since I also remember them calling her a leftist radical.
I happen to disagree with her. I feel this will open a slippery slope of other reversals that will set us back 50 years.
Then if it happens to one of your minor relatives, we'll take our clues from you and won't worry about it.
Almost universally, every poll is tracking at 60% in favor of some sort of choice. And while I am sure that there are women who based on their beliefs are against abortion, no one is forcing them to have one. On the other hand, there are women who will be forced to have a baby, that never wanted one for various reasons.
I can quote other liberal legal scholars who feel the same way. It was a bad decision. You told me you had the majority on this issue. Enact the law you want. It should be easy with a majority.
We are a nation of laws, not feelings.
You and I both know that will not happen in any time soon and honestly, it should have never been the case.
That is such rubbish. You know that it will take years to vote people in and that is what you are banking on.
Then it should be a slam dunk. Let's put it to a vote.
And while I am sure that there are women who based on their beliefs are against abortion, no one is forcing them to have one. On the other hand, there are women who will be forced to have a baby, that never wanted one for various reasons.
I won't be alive to see it, but some future generation will judge us on the termination of those unwanted babies.
Your Senator promises to take a vote on it - soon!
it should have never been the case.
Roe should never have happened.
On this issue, I'm not banking on anything.
Crazy isn't it? Abortion is apparently so popular that that it's Fanclub is doing everything they can to prevent if from discussed and decided on democratic principles.
I've addressed this already. This is just nasty.
Or they will judge us by how we treated women in the 21st Century.
The anti-choice forces are motivated almost entirely by their feelings.
Excuse me Sean, but I don't see any lack of discussion here.
Lol... Have you read this site lately?
I'm not getting it either?
What I'm afraid of is the rhetoric that democratic politicians have used. A Supreme Court Justice had to cancel an appearance at a judicial conference, out of safety concerns.
Becuase they are "babies", not zygotes or fetuses without nervous systems.
Oh please, no different than that of Republicans. When it comes to political rhetoric there is no good side.
Well, that is awful. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Right. That's what I was arguing.
An adult woman who suddenly decides to terminate a pregnancy?
Yes, there will be many judging them.
I'm glad to hear it and I knew you'd say it.
What is the other wrong?
Vic, I don't know what kind of women you have known, but of the few women that I know who had to have an abortion, it was early on, not done on a whim.
Go back... I updated my answer.
You know what's really crazy? Republicans pretending like they care about the Constitution and democratic principles.
Then why are pro-abortion advocates demanding abortion at all stages?
I see that.
Vic,
First of all, most people are pro-choice not pro-abortion. I know no one who is pro-abortion. Second, most people have abortions in the first trimester. This has been an established fact through the tons of articles here. Also, abortion is at an all-time low. So your argument is a red herring.
Then why are pro-lifers demanding no abortions at any stages? See how that works when you leave out 'some'?
It is? You mean all this time I've been arguing a red herring? And I'm using the wrong phrase - It's pro-choice? Ok, when I discuss it with you I'll use that phrase.
However
I think you've used a bit of that red herring as well. If you have a majority, you should easily be able to enact a federal law when Chuck Schumer puts it to a vote. That's actually the way it was going to go in the early 70's until the Court got involved.
I'll be back Monday. Have a good weekend.
That is not a red herring. But I will tell you this. Throughout my life, I have voted across party lines. Now, it will never happen again. This one freedom meant too much to me, and now it has been taken away from my daughters and niece, and my cousins. I will never count on a republican to represent my fundamental freedom.
Oh, and btw, RBG really cared about women's rights and reproductive rights being part of that. That quote that you love to use, was of her concern that this could be the possible outcome. But hey one too many conservative justices.
See you on Monday.
That's a specious argument, but, of course, you know that.
Sure, we can't all be grown ups and put on costumes and demonstrate outside justices homes.
Only a progressive could pretend they care about democratic principles as they fight tooth against letting people vote on setting the rules they live by.
Our rights and freedoms are constitutionally guaranteed, and should not be up to a vote...
But the anti-choice "grown ups" can spend decades demonstrating outside medical clinics that perform abortions, demonstrate outside doctors' homes, scream at and terrorize patients, threaten doctors' families, block access to and bomb clinics and murder doctors.
And theocratic dominionists can lie, cheat and manipulate to try to impose their religious doctrines on people who just want to live their lives and be left alone.
The fetus's right to life does not supersede the mother's. Pregnancy and childbirth are 14 times more dangerous to a woman's life than abortion.
Women should not be required by force of government to risk their lives in the name of forced birth. If they choose to risk their lives to have a baby, that's their decision.
Both zygotes and fetuses are both stages of development of what?
Wait for it!
Wait for it!
BABIES!
Then why?
How come women have "reproductive rights" and men do not?
So you are for the right to keep and bear arms then
Those that did that were caught, tried and convicted of those crimes. They were not allowed to do them.
Most abortions are performed for the convenience of the mother and not because her life is in any danger.
Yet there are millions of not billions of more women that get pregnant and go through childbirth and survive than don't. Also trying to compare abortion and child birth and pregnancy is comparing oranges to grapefruit
If pregnancy is so dangerous to women and sex is the cause of pregnancy maybe we should outlaw women from having sex or force them to be sterilized to save their lives.
BTW I don't believe that we should do the last part of comment 13.3.59. In any way.
I didn't think that you were serious, you dog you.
Every pregnant woman's life is in danger above that it would be in if she were not pregnant.
Their choice, hopefully. A choice I made, as well. Operative word being "choice".
Or maybe sterilize men, thereby removing the danger. Vasectomy is safer and less invasive, not to mention less expensive, than tubal ligation. If we're going to be forcing surgeries on people, and presumably paying for them, we should do it the cheaper, safer way, yes?
Didn't read 3.3.60 did you.
I responded in order.
Your point is no more valid because of that.
Pregnant women's lives are more at risk than non-pregnant women's lives. That is a fact borne out by statistics. Who are you to force a woman to risk her life? Who are you to equate her increasing her safety to mere "convenience"?
And you are safer staying locked in your house than going outside. Life is full of risks.
No law forces me to leave my house.
No law forces you to have intercourse either.
And no law should force me to risk my life via pregnancy.
Abortion bans are such laws, as you are well aware.
And no law forces you to walk down the street, ride in a car or fly in an airplane. All involve risk. Do you avoid those too!
Moving goalposts. Why must such a law be federal?
Where are abortions banned out right certainly not by the federal government.
Excellent point. I am not forced by any law to do any of those things. I engage in all of them by choice.
At what point in a pregnancy would you ban abortion unless the life of the woman was medically at risk. And no being suicidal is not a medical risk.
If Roe is overturned, Texas has a "trigger law" in place that will ban all abortions, including those that are the result of rape or incest.
It is already a civil offense in Texas to have aid an abortion after 6 weeks, meaning that one can be sued for contributing to such an abortion. There is no exception for rape or incest.
But you already know this, and are sealioning.
When you get pregnant you will have the same "reproductive rights" as a pregnant woman does.
[deleted]
There is no need to engage in false accusations or personal insults.
If I ever get pregnant I won't have be worried about rights. I not only would be the only male to ever get pregnant but only the second person to ever have a baby without ever having sexual contact with a man. I will be rich beyond my dreams.
What false accusations or insults? There have been several women that have killed their children that were even older than what I mentioned because they were an inconvenience in their lives.
Your entire comment was an insult, saying that charger would be ok with murder.
Maybe not worried, but I bet you would be very concerned about protecting your rights -- movie rights, book rights, maybe merchandising rights. You might also be interested in naming rights. Think of the corporations competing to put their name on the baby.
The Dancers at the End of Time would put you in a zoo.
NO!, to your first question
for the second question, After they are here, out in the open and breathing they have arrived. Then, depending on circumstances, they are a joy and wanted (hopefully) or a problem or inconvenience but they are here and somebody has to take care of them and pay the bills.
And now a question to you, what is wrong with things being convenient and the woman living her life the way she wants to?
Yes, there are cases of women killing their children, I don't approve of that. Maybe they should not been put in a bad situation where they would want to do that. A legal abortion might have prevented that problem
they might form a new religion if that happened, said charger laughingly
Philosophically because abortion is an abhorrent practice in all but the most extreme cases. E.g. rape, incest, high risk of death to the mother, etc. Rationalizing that abortion is okay, simply as a matter of convenience for the mother, is just evil IMO.
Some of them killed them because it interfered with their dating
[deleted]
Looks like a fine income to me.
might have been better if they had a legal abortion,
Unwanted children usually have a poor and unhappy childhood and these problems carry on into adulthood. Just does not seem to be a situation conducive to good results and a happy life.
So is a miscarriage or stillbirth then manslaughter?
No both of those are natural occurrences and involved no over actions.
[deleted.]
I'm sure you feel the same way when it involves veterans.
What relationship to veterans do you see?
They might. With corporate sponsors!
Suicide is a mental disorder an abortion can neither cause or keep someone from committing it.
see 13.3.88
unwanted pregnancy has caused some woman to commit suicide just as killing already born children as was brought up in post 13.3.84. both have happened unnecessarily
I guess that would be the ultimate abortion
You mean when the life of the mother is at stake? We are way past that argument. You're talking about abortion on demand.
Pregnancy and childbirth are 14 times more dangerous to a woman's life than abortion.
I don't know who Liz Raymond but she should have given us the name of the study so we could hear from all sides. pub.Med.com?
If they choose to risk their lives to have a baby, that's their decision.
Really? And how many abortions took place because the man in the relationship didn't want the baby?
You are a democrat now? No more independent?
Oh, and btw, RBG really cared about women's rights and reproductive rights being part of that. That quote that you love to use, was of her concern that this could be the possible outcome.
Oh yes, she was a proponent of abortion. She was correct about the method used and the division that would follow.
But hey one too many conservative justices.
Five of the seven Justices who wrongly decided Roe were appointed by Republican Presidents.
The mother's life is always at stake, Vic. That's my point. Women during pregnancy are at increased risk of dying. Blood clots, heart attacks, strokes - the risks of all of them increase. And the US has a high maternal mortality rate compared to other developed nations.
I'm sure there have been abortions because the father didn't want a child. I recall some Republican lawmakers' mistresses...
You sound jealous.
So is the babies.
You sound angry.
Today the far right consider themselves to be independant centrists ... it's a shell game they play solo.
Best Quip!
I will never join a party. In local elections, I will vote for either party.
No, she was a proponent of choice. There is a big difference.
I am aware of that. Maybe Republicans used to be a different breed?
Wrong. I am not joining a party and will be voting as I always have in local elections. National ones are a whole different thing.
And no, I am not a one-issue voter. I see this as just the beginning of taking away rights of all kinds. The Gov of Miss now wants to go after types of birth control. What's next? Who we can marry? Privacy is part of our liberties enumerated in the Constitution, even if it is not specifically spelled out.
Do you think that an independent is necessarily not a member of a political party? Perrie is not a member of a party but she certainly could be AND be independent.
In short, not all members of a political party let the party do their thinking for them. There are independent Rs and independent Ds. Think of it as a critical thinker who has determined that one of the parties is better suited to their way of thinking. But this individual will not necessarily vote straight party line nor will this individual presume that their party is always right and the other party is always wrong.
I do not think you understand what a political independent is.
I know it is hard for partisans to understand, but I have no interest in parties, nor do I agree with Dems.
That being said, if this is the trip that Republicans want to go to (and may I remind you they didn't always), then yes I will not vote for one who will go to Washington to represent me. On a state and local level, I will.
I am what I am. I am a disgusted idepenendent. I have people who represent this country who want to take away my rights to my body, and I feel this is only the beginning. When you can bring back the Republican Party of the past, we can talk. But I don't recognize this party.
I am very sure you have never voted for a Dem for President, while I have voted for Republican Presidents. And I didn't say I wouldn't vote for Republicans, just never on a national level. And no, it is not about just abortion, but that was the tipping point for me.
Of course, you totally avoided the point I was trying to make, which is the Republican party is not the Republican party I knew. That is the problem.
Now please stop telling me what I am. It's rude, and actually, a violation since I am not the topic of this discussion.
Then that is two things you are getting wrong.
Then you might qualify as an independent.
Have you ever made a statement of the form: "I will never ..." but not really, truly mean 'never'? Think this through. If someone has a history of voting for Ds and Rs and then makes a statement as mentioned, do you really think that the individual has now suddenly transformed into a partisan and will now follow the party line rather than engage in critical thinking? Or do you think that person who voted for Ds and Rs never really was independent (even though the voting record suggests so)?
Get real MM. Perrie has told you that she is a political independent. She knows her position better than anyone else. Who do you think you are to, on such superficial grounds, tell Perrie to her face that she is lying?
I am unclear about your point.
I believe that is a very arrogant comment and worse, one that is meant to be demeaning.
I think we need to be clear on what it means to be an independent.
First, it does not matter if one belongs to a party.
Second, a political independent is one who considers the factors of an issue and decides for themselves where they stand. A political independent might factor in the position of a party but will NOT adopt the position simply because the party holds it.
Stated differently, the difference between a political independent and a political dependent (a partisan) is that the former makes their own political decisions while the latter generally adopts the party line.
I tend to agree with that.
I am disgusted enough with the current crop of candidates to quit voting until I can vote for a candidate instead of against a candidate.
I don't care what anyone says. I liked Obama.
I get so tired of some folks acting like certain women are so casual about this, meaning Democratic/Liberal/Progressive/and even independent women, thinking women abort up to and including after delivery. That we view it all as a mere inconvenience.
Me, too. I voted for him twice.
Abbott considers reviving case challenging requirement to have illegal immigrants in public schools
Oh but wait a minute...Somebody here was just visiting Texas and somebody there told him that Abbott is an embarrassment. That was supposed to be a rebuttal.
Out in the White House Rose Garden, Biden begins his remarks commemorating Cinco de Mayo, a major Mexican holiday, by talking about... discrimination against the Irish.
Ah twitter news, what else you got?
Gee do you maybe think he brought up Ireland because they voted for overturning the ban on abortion.
No.
He brought up the Irish facing discrimination because that is his ancestry. And he is stupid.
Even the Washington Examiner ran a more truthful take than you. Quelle surprise!
Aw shucks! I'm not setting myself up to be the Washington Examiner. I only want to be J J Hunsecker
I am afraid you are stuck with being Sidney Falco.
LOL! That's is your best comeback to-date!
You may want to tell Joe.
I didn't listen to his speech yesterday.. You're the one that said Cinco De Mayo is a major Mexican holiday. I merely pointed out that it is not
Fair enough.
I always thought Sinko de Mayo was a day of mourning.....
Good one
That's the day after...when you're suffering from that tequila hangover
Thread @6.1 locked for slap fighting.
Biden has given us two new agencies: we have a Disinformation Governance Board and now the Office of Environmental Justice!
neither of which are needed and will just waste money and cause problems
I wonder if we are looking forward to a storming of the Supreme Court similar to the Jan 6 storming of the Capital Building.
I'd keep a sharp lookout for thumpers wearing maga hats, knee pads, and bibs.