Protecting the Constitution

[wadesworld]

By the way, remember how hard it was to be forced to wear a mask? Can you imagine being forced to give birth?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

He has egg on his face, so his only thing left to do is redirect the conversation and try to make you look like a bad human being. He's a pro.

They are both race hating progressives.

Like I said, forgetful should be better than defending Sanger.

[wadesworld]

They are both race hating progressives.

Like I said, forgetful should be better than defending Sanger.

Is correcting false statements defending someone?

[Lennys Tap]

The reality is, the great majority of Americans have really similar views on most issues, and very, very few of us are ready and willing to kill our neighbors over the slim differences.

I hope your right. Reading the Superbar makes me wonder.

[Uncle Rico]

   never heard this spin before...where did you hear this one forget?  the view? joyless reid?  morning joe?  gotta be a crt based whopper

That's a solid 9 out of 10

[muwarrior69]

A 9-week-old fetus is not "an actual human being." The woman pregnant with that fetus IS an actual human being, though, and her rights were just dialed back a half-century.

But I do agree that some of these SCOTUS justices are such religious zealots that they could deny the women even more rights to control their own bodies.

That is your opinion and I respect that, but many would disagree with your opinion. The Court sent it back to the states to decide. I have no doubt the personhood question will come before the Supreme court at some point and they will have to decide. Even if they granted personhood status it would not ban abortion it would only grant the fetus equal protection and many of these difficult decision would be decided on a case by case ruling.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745

[muwarrior69]

...and so it begins.

https://www.abc15.com/news/state/groups-seek-to-halt-arizona-personhood-law-after-roe-falls

[Uncle Rico]

...and so it begins.

https://www.abc15.com/news/state/groups-seek-to-halt-arizona-personhood-law-after-roe-falls

This is why we have to ban religion

[brewcity77]

The same people who couldn't bear to be forced to wear a facemask for a couple months seem to think there's no problem forcing women to carry and bear a child for 9 months.

My family would not exist without abortion. My wife would be dead and my children would never have been born. Abortion saves lives and saves families.

[ATL MU Warrior]

That is your opinion and I respect that, but many would disagree with your opinion. The Court sent it back to the states to decide. I have no doubt the personhood question will come before the Supreme court at some point and they will have to decide. Even if they granted personhood status it would not ban abortion it would only grant the fetus equal protection and many of these difficult decision would be decided on a case by case ruling.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745

And who would be making these decisions?  The government?  That's really what you want? 

The only person with the right to make that decision is the pregnant woman. And that's what's just been taken away from them. 

[Pakuni]

I hope your right. Reading the Superbar makes me wonder.

Are you willing to kill a fellow Scooper over differences of opinions? Do you worry a fellow Scooper may kill you?
I know I'm not, on both counts.
Not even Ziggy.

[wadesworld]

Are you willing to kill a fellow Scooper over differences of opinions? Do you worry a fellow Scooper may kill you?
I know I'm not, on both counts.
Not even Ziggy.

I would agree.  But I never thought a Scooper would stalk me and email my HR department, so... 🤷🏻‍♂️

[MU82]

And who would be making these decisions?  The government?  That's really what you want? 

The only person with the right to make that decision is the pregnant woman. And that's what's just been taken away from them.

The small-government folks tie themselves up in extremely tight knots as they say it's OK for government to reach right into a woman's uterus.

I have no doubt the personhood question will come before the Supreme court at some point and they will have to decide.

You're probably right about this. Scary times in America. Steps away from The Handmaid's Tale, with Christian religious zealots taking over all 3 branches of government and force everybody to adhere to their interpretations of both science and scripture.

[lawdog77]

The small-government folks tie themselves up in extremely tight knots as they say it's OK for government to reach right into a woman's uterus.

You're probably right about this. Scary times in America. Steps away from The Handmaid's Tale, with Christian religious zealots taking over all 3 branches of government and force everybody to adhere to their interpretations of both science and scripture.

Well people need to get out and vote. Not that difficult of a proposition. Candidates need to be pretty clear on their stances, and be consistent. Maybe it's a wakeup call. Considering about 60% vote in presidential elections, and 40% vote in midterm elections, this might be the impetus to get those who can vote, to actually do something.

[MU82]

Well people need to get out and vote. Not that difficult of a proposition. Candidates need to be pretty clear on their stances, and be consistent. Maybe it's a wakeup call. Considering about 60% vote in presidential elections, and 40% vote in midterm elections, this might be the impetus to get those who can vote, to actually do something.

That would be good, yes. Here's hoping that Trump is right (a phrase I never thought I'd say) in that this greatly motivates those who oppose government putting its grubby hands into women's uteruses.

[muwarrior69]

And who would be making these decisions?  The government?  That's really what you want? 

The only person with the right to make that decision is the pregnant woman. And that's what's just been taken away from them.

Isn't the government, we the people, and at some point the courts are going to decide if a fetus is a person or not and has rights protected under the 14th amendment just as a pregnant woman has. Even in the Roe decision back in '73 the court said the states do have a compelling interest to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester and struggled over the question of personhood but instead referred to the viability of the fetus avoiding the legal can of worms that would come of declaring the fetus a person. Yes the court threw the question back to the states, but the states will be back asking the court to finally decide that question in the end.

You say only the woman has that right to make that decision, but most Americans would disagree as they are in the middle saying there should be some restrictions. I think there will be a point during pregnancy where most Americans will agree when the interest and rights of the unborn should be considered.

[MUBurrow]

Isn't the government, we the people, and at some point the courts are going to decide if a fetus is a person or not and has rights protected under the 14th amendment just as a pregnant woman has. Even in the Roe decision back in '73 the court said the states do have a compelling interest to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester and struggled over the question of personhood but instead referred to the viability of the fetus avoiding the legal can of worms that would come of declaring the fetus a person. Yes the court threw the question back to the states, but the states will be back asking the court to finally decide that question in the end.

You say only the woman has that right to make that decision, but most Americans would disagree as they are in the middle saying there should be some restrictions. I think there will be a point during pregnancy where most Americans will agree when the interest and rights of the unborn should be considered.

I think this is a good analysis and its also what makes the decision to toss Roe so insane to me.  Stuck in an absolutely no-win situation, Blackmun crafted an imperfect compromise based on viability that the vast majority of Americans could plug their nose and live with.  To toss it without a coherent framework to replace it in the year of our Lord 2022 citing an antiquated deference to states' rights is jurisprudential malpractice.

[muwarrior69]

Well people need to get out and vote. Not that difficult of a proposition. Candidates need to be pretty clear on their stances, and be consistent. Maybe it's a wakeup call. Considering about 60% vote in presidential elections, and 40% vote in midterm elections, this might be the impetus to get those who can vote, to actually do something.

I could not agree with you more and I am sure the 6 Justices you so vehemently disagree with would encourage you to do just that.

[Merit Matters]

A big win for Joe Kennedy and football coaches everywhere. A lot of winning going on lately. 

[Pakuni]

You say only the woman has that right to make that decision, but most Americans would disagree as they are in the middle saying there should be some restrictions. I think there will be a point during pregnancy where most Americans will agree when the interest and rights of the unborn should be considered.

Can you use the "most Americans" argument for imposing some restrictions on abortion, while supporting a ruling to toss Roe v Wade that "most Americans" believe is wrong?

[Uncle Rico]

I could not agree with you more and I am sure the 6 Justices you so vehemently disagree with would encourage you to do just that.

It's why atheists should be the only Supreme Court justices.

[4everwarriors]

Nah, Nads wood make a terrible justass, aina?

[MU82]

Nah, Nads wood make a terrible justass, aina?

I'm overqualified!

[muwarrior69]

I think this is a good analysis and its also what makes the decision to toss Wade so insane to me.  Stuck in an absolutely no-win situation, Blackmun crafted an imperfect compromise based on viability that the vast majority of Americans could plug their nose and live with.  To toss it without a coherent framework to replace it in the year of our lord 2022 citing an antiquated deference to states' rights is jurisprudential malpractice.

The difference is that Roe said the states could have a compelling interest to restrict abortion, but never addressed whether the states must restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester. If the question of personhood does come before the court I could see mid/late term abortions being banned in all states or at least challenged where  a dad or grandparent who have standing is willing to care for the child. Are you arguing that the unborn should not have any rights even though Roe ruled there is a compelling state interest?

[Pakuni]

It's why atheists should be the only Supreme Court justices.

Pfft. Belief in the Establishment Clause is for suckers.