No one has the right to destroy the life of another human. Especially for the myriad ridiculous reasons women claim. 98% of abortions have nothing to do with medical reasons.
If we don't own our own bodies, contra John Locke, what could we possibly own?
The court decision had nothing to do with that. Ironically, out of wedlock births were much lower pre-Roe than post-Roe. If it’s any consolation, baby Roe (the unwanted child who was born to a waitress that had three kids outside of wedlock and given up for adoption) is no fan of Roe and might feel differently about who owned her body.
You don't know what I think. If abortion proponents were advocating for only early-term abortions in extreme circumstances (i.e. rape or indirect abortion as medical treatment), I'd be more sympathetic to the pro-choice/anti-life position but they're not and the numbers are very clear that's not why people want abortion to be legal. In fact I would even be supportive instances of rape, but would be even more supportive of adoption in that case. However, abortion advocates use those extreme examples as red-herrings for what they really want, which is abortion as birth control so people can f*ck with no responsibility. I can tell just by my social media and who gets angriest whenever these abortion issues crop up, and it's always the village bikes who go out partying every weekend that go on the angry social media tirades.
I like f*cking as much as anyone else, I'm human, but is ending a life really worth my promiscuity to me? Nah, not really, and that's pretty sad that there are people out there that really need sex with strangers so badly that they're willing to rationalize killing innocent children over it. You really have to ask yourself what your values are if that's the case.
Classic “no women wants to f#*k me so I act like I’m making a moral choice”.
all of your other posts indicate you don’t give a crap about children . maybe you believe that but we know
Classic "I know what you're saying is true but it makes my feelings hurt so I'm gonna call you names now."
It's hardly surprising that another American political institution - in this case only requiring 6 unelected officials - has taken away rights of millions of its citizens. All women. It fits well with a nation founded on such "principle", with over two hundred years of slavery. All black. Oppression is the American thing.
1. Lefty people like yourself can’t even define what a woman is.
2. You didn’t even read the ruling or understand roe in the first place. Please demonstrate where in the constitution is the right to an abortion and where the decision says this right is gone.
The 14th amendment clearly confers a broad right to privacy that encompasses a right to abortion, gay sex, contraception, gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc.
If we don't own our own bodies, contra John Locke, what could we possibly own?
The court decision had nothing to do with that. Ironically, out of wedlock births were much lower pre-Roe than post-Roe. If it’s any consolation, baby Roe (the unwanted child who was born to a waitress that had three kids outside of wedlock and given up for adoption) is no fan of Roe and might feel differently about who owned her body.
Yes it does. Right to privacy now doesn't extend to the space inside your body. What happens in your stomach, uterus, lungs or intestine is now fair game for a state to legislate over.
A court that has no respect for 50-100 year old precedents is not a court, it is a legislative body ignoring the most basic principles of American jurisprudence and the spirit of the separation of powers erected in the constitution.
This court believes in the right of government to impose on all the whims and superstitions of a few. It is aggressively pushing a religious ideology in practice indistinguishable from sharia law. It and those who support it are a threat to liberty and democracy because they believe in neither.
1) All of the recently appointed conservative justices flat-out lied in their confirmation testimonies.
2) A cluster of cells is not a person.
3) The majority of Americans, by a good measure, oppose this decision and conservatives will pay a political price for overplaying their hand -- even DJT admits this.
A court that has no respect for 50-100 year old precedents is not a court, it is a legislative body ignoring the most basic principles of American jurisprudence and the spirit of the separation of powers erected in the constitution.
This court believes in the right of government to impose on all the whims and superstitions of a few. It is aggressively pushing a religious ideology in practice indistinguishable from sharia law. It and those who support it are a threat to liberty and democracy because they believe in neither.
"..the whim" of a few? That's that the liberals on the court imposed in 1973 - ignoring the constitution or, rather, pretending that they discovered the right to abortion in it. Today's moderate court said that was a blatant lie and you need to amend the constitution if you want abortion in there.
We finally have justices that know how to read and think. And by the way, they'll respect any laws that are passed legitimately whether they like them or not. unlike liberals - and we all know that.
A court that has no respect for 50-100 year old precedents is not a court, it is a legislative body ignoring the most basic principles of American jurisprudence and the spirit of the separation of powers erected in the constitution.
This court believes in the right of government to impose on all the whims and superstitions of a few. It is aggressively pushing a religious ideology in practice indistinguishable from sharia law. It and those who support it are a threat to liberty and democracy because they believe in neither.
Have you tried living under sharia law? You have no idea what you are bloviating. Try reducing hyperbole, it’s unintelligent.
SCOTUS as a body of the government and the separation of powers hasn’t changed since founding and its size hasn’t in over 150 years. Precedents get overturned all the time. It would be a pretty stupid Supreme Court that could never correct a mistake.
Yet, you still think a raped women should carry her baby to term. Telling.
You don't know what I think. If abortion proponents were advocating for only early-term abortions in extreme circumstances (i.e. rape or indirect abortion as medical treatment), I'd be more sympathetic to the pro-choice/anti-life position but they're not and the numbers are very clear that's not why people want abortion to be legal. In fact I would even be supportive instances of rape, but would be even more supportive of adoption in that case. However, abortion advocates use those extreme examples as red-herrings for what they really want, which is abortion as birth control so people can f*ck with no responsibility. I can tell just by my social media and who gets angriest whenever these abortion issues crop up, and it's always the village bikes who go out partying every weekend that go on the angry social media tirades.
I like f*cking as much as anyone else, I'm human, but is ending a life really worth my promiscuity to me? Nah, not really, and that's pretty sad that there are people out there that really need sex with strangers so badly that they're willing to rationalize killing innocent children over it. You really have to ask yourself what your values are if that's the case.
Do you have any rationale why it’s ok to kill a baby conceived by rape but not one by any other reason beyond sticking it to the loose woman?
A court that has no respect for 50-100 year old precedents is not a court, it is a legislative body ignoring the most basic principles of American jurisprudence and the spirit of the separation of powers erected in the constitution.
This court believes in the right of government to impose on all the whims and superstitions of a few. It is aggressively pushing a religious ideology in practice indistinguishable from sharia law. It and those who support it are a threat to liberty and democracy because they believe in neither.
"..the whim" of a few? That's that the liberals on the court imposed in 1973 - ignoring the constitution or, rather, pretending that they discovered the right to abortion in it. Today's moderate court said that was a blatant lie and you need to amend the constitution if you want abortion in there.
We finally have justices that know how to read and think. And by the way, they'll respect any laws that are passed legitimately whether they like them or not. unlike liberals - and we all know that.
..and another by the way, slavery was a precedent. That doesn't make it something to venerate.
1) All of the recently appointed conservative justices flat-out lied in their confirmation testimonies.
2) A cluster of cells is not a person.
3) The majority of Americans, by a good measure, oppose this decision and conservatives will pay a political price for overplaying their hand -- even DJT admits this.
1) Wrong, none of them promised to refuse to overturn Roe and everyone of them explicitly refused to be trapped into doing so when pressured, just that you are choosing to hear what you wanted to hear.
2) Hmm.
3) It’s unclear if they do and it’s hardly clear they can do anything about it. People in blue states have little changed for them and they can’t influence elected representatives of red states anyway, and those in red states seem to largely see this decision as a victory.
The Supreme Court of the early 1970s would disagree.
All this decision did is to ensure that the Supreme Court will rule things constitutional, and then unconstitutional, according to the ideological whim of the Court, every couple decades, going forward. The right to abortion will be back as soon as two conservative Justices are replaced with those leaning more in favor of those rights.
Yes! Liberals will always try to impose their will - ignoring the constitution - and conservatives will always try to bring us back to the rule of law. You're very perspicatious!
Oh, the irony!
///
Hint for the IQ challenged - What exactly do you think draconian abortion laws do? Couldn't be imposing your will upon women, could it?
A court that has no respect for 50-100 year old precedents is not a court, it is a legislative body ignoring the most basic principles of American jurisprudence and the spirit of the separation of powers erected in the constitution.
This court believes in the right of government to impose on all the whims and superstitions of a few. It is aggressively pushing a religious ideology in practice indistinguishable from sharia law. It and those who support it are a threat to liberty and democracy because they believe in neither.
Folks, your friendly neighborhood Muslim here. Please don't use Islamic terms to describe the fascist movement in America. It isn't Sharia, which allows abortion, or Islamic law or the Taliban. It's white Christian nationalism. Name it. The radical movement is homegrown.