|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Jun 26, 2022 12:28:31 GMT -5
Repeating for posterity: there is not a single phrase of language in the constitution that can reasonably be interpreted as guaranteeing the right to an abortion. Your silly hand-waiving and word games here, are doing nothing other than confirming why people hate lawyers. this isn't true at all. you might believe there isn't language guaranteeing a right to abortion but plenty of people (who are much smarter than you or I) do. Plenty of smart people have no morals, I am sure Marx and Engels were smart, but not wise. |
|
|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Jun 26, 2022 12:30:44 GMT -5
OK. Fine. You are probably right, here. They are smarter than me, as I will freely concede to, and they might actually, genuinely believe that, even though that is clearly false. What is one such phrase -- language directly written in the USC -- that you personally believe guarantees the right to an abortion. I am curious. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Lame, that has nothing to do with the topic. Try again, but this time make a cogent arguement |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 12:31:02 GMT -5
Plenty of smart people are also highly susceptible to ideological agendas. As much as, or more so, then “regular” people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 12:31:47 GMT -5
This is obviously correct.
Major problem though: those women already were going to vote that way. They were going to vote that way long before the SCOTUS leak.
They voted that way, in the last election.
The loudest and angriest -- the activists, the protestors -- already were going to vote that way. They already had been voting that way. And yet, here we are.
So .... nothing is changing.
So much for my analysis. You are correct. All I know is that abortion is still quite legal in some states in this country and people will have to travel to get it. People who can't afford to do so are now in a world of hurt. I largely disagree, because they’ll be able to get abortion pills easily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 12:33:03 GMT -5
So? I went steps ahead of that question and cut directly to the point that matters. Clearly, you're indeed just highlighting that language in the USC can be contorted to mean whatever you want it to mean. Doesn't matter in the slightest how I personally define liberty, or what I think the founders intended that phrasing to mean. It only matters what the SCOTUS during that ruling thinks. Would you say the same about dred Scott and plessy? I think we can be a little more aspirational about what the constitution protects than "a bunch of ultraconservative fossils are the end all and be all of meaning" There has been and remains a difference between what the language as written actually means and what you *want* it to mean. I support a constitutional amendment. That’s the real way. But you want to cheat. |
|
|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Jun 26, 2022 12:33:20 GMT -5
Unless you elaborate further, I'll assume this means you conceded the point. You reminded me of something I need to do today. Concede what point? Was there a point you were trying to make in this thread? I thought you were just trying to be a pointless waste of time Why post something so idiotic? Are you trying to prove to everyone you can't think? |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 26, 2022 12:34:49 GMT -5
Would you say the same about dred Scott and plessy? I think we can be a little more aspirational about what the constitution protects than "a bunch of ultraconservative fossils are the end all and be all of meaning" There has been and remains a difference between what the language as written actually means and what you *want* it to mean. I support a constitutional amendment. That’s the real way. But you want to cheat. I don't want to cheat, I want the government to protect constitutional rights. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 26, 2022 12:49:33 GMT -5
This is obviously correct. Major problem though: those women already were going to vote that way. They were going to vote that way long before the SCOTUS leak. They voted that way, in the last election. The loudest and angriest -- the activists, the protestors -- already were going to vote that way. They already had been voting that way. And yet, here we are. So .... nothing is changing.
Odd, but my wife and her friends are much more vocal about being anti killing of babies than me and all their husband's. Dems like to think it is just men that are anti killing of babies, but it is just a lie <10 of both sexes believe abortion should be legal in all cases and the % of men and women who advocate positions are very closely aligned that means 90% believe abortion (in some cases) should be legal, that is overwhelming it's the 70% that believe abortion should be legal, with some restrictions. It's the restrictions issue (which a lot like guns) is where the extreme positions and some extreme laws, simply don't align with what the people want. could pretty much guarantee if there was a single nationwide referendum, that allowed abortions up to 10-12 weeks (below the 'viability' definition defined in medical/scientific research), it would likely pass with significant margin, like 65-35% for/against. Therein lies the rub where the extreme ends of the spectrum control the law and debate. just like if there was a vote to further delineate arms to restrict/ban mass assault weapons, it would likely pass with a significant margin therein lies the rub, the messaging that gets amplified, and further exaggerated by media, distorts the debate into 'all or nothing' positions for both issues. so we essentially don't get to vote or get represented well by laws that are compromises that the public actually supports the 10% against any abortion and the 20% that wants it total choice control the message and debate that leads to punishment of the leaders that would actually support comprimise. The grass roots level of people in the Democratic and Republican parties are zealots. |
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jun 26, 2022 12:51:54 GMT -5
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jun 26, 2022 12:53:06 GMT -5
Would you say the same about dred Scott and plessy? I think we can be a little more aspirational about what the constitution protects than "a bunch of ultraconservative fossils are the end all and be all of meaning" There has been and remains a difference between what the language as written actually means and what you *want* it to mean. I support a constitutional amendment. That’s the real way. But you want to cheat. When was the last constitutional amendment? |
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jun 26, 2022 17:19:53 GMT -5
In a CBS News poll released on Sunday, half of Democratic respondents said that Friday’s ruling ending federal abortion protections for every woman in the country made them more likely to participate in the upcoming midterm elections; by comparison, the percentage of Republicans who said the same was 30 points lower.
Those results may indicate a significant voter enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican-leaning voters that could hamstring the GOP’s efforts to win back majorities in the House and Senate, and thereby prevent Joe Biden from passing any significant legislation supported by his party’s base for at least two years.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 26, 2022 17:30:46 GMT -5
This is obviously correct. Major problem though: those women already were going to vote that way. They were going to vote that way long before the SCOTUS leak. They voted that way, in the last election. The loudest and angriest -- the activists, the protestors -- already were going to vote that way. They already had been voting that way. And yet, here we are. So .... nothing is changing.
Odd, but my wife and her friends are much more vocal about being anti killing of babies than me and all their husband's. Dems like to think it is just men that are anti killing of babies, but it is just a lie Why would you post something so stupid? Are you an idiot? |
|
|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Jun 26, 2022 17:46:12 GMT -5
Odd, but my wife and her friends are much more vocal about being anti killing of babies than me and all their husband's. Dems like to think it is just men that are anti killing of babies, but it is just a lie Why would you post something so stupid? Are you an idiot? Nice try dork, so you hate women? Like little boys better? That is sick. What is wring with you? |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 26, 2022 17:47:46 GMT -5
In a CBS News poll released on Sunday, half of Democratic respondents said that Friday’s ruling ending federal abortion protections for every woman in the country made them more likely to participate in the upcoming midterm elections; by comparison, the percentage of Republicans who said the same was 30 points lower. Those results may indicate a significant voter enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican-leaning voters that could hamstring the GOP’s efforts to win back majorities in the House and Senate, and thereby prevent Joe Biden from passing any significant legislation supported by his party’s base for at least two years. I don't think it'll make a difference in the House (partly thanks to gerrymandering). Dems are gonna lose that sh*t. Senate? I guess, maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 26, 2022 17:49:37 GMT -5
Why would you post something so stupid? Are you an idiot? Nice try dork, so you hate women? Like little boys better? That is sick. What is wring with you? Lighten up, Levchuk. What is wrong with you? |
|
