The Supremes

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

1 minute ago, JFKFC said:

Is slavery a personal choice? No, it is completely wrong. Some things are completely wrong. Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

Now, as I said, if there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate a pregnancy, that is a decision for a medical professional. That is not something to be legislated.

There may be a flaw in your reasoning.  

[Satchel 6,925]

Men should not leave women out on this limb by themselves. Empathy requires support of any policy or procedure that advances, promotes and protects women’s health.

[DDD Dad 14,325]

3 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Is slavery a personal choice? No, it is completely wrong. Some things are completely wrong. Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

Now, as I said, if there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate a pregnancy, that is a decision for a medical professional. That is not something to be legislated.

So now first trimester fetuses are "children"?

Gotcha.

[jimmyjazz 45,886]

Quote

• "Forcefully refute Democrat lies regarding GOP positions on abortion and women's health care," it adds, saying Republicans do not want to take away contraception, mammograms and female health care or throw doctors and women in jail.

Well, except for that time a little over a month ago when a Texas woman was indicted for having a self-induced abortion.  So, yeah?

[Gourmand 7,774]

5 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

Go fuck yourself, but before you do I demand you get a vasectomy.

[Jive Turkey 12,594]

pretty compelling thread from a former SCOTUS clerk on why this was a GQP leak:

 

[Skipper 6,127]

17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What good do you think the American public gets from the Supreme Court deliberating in secret?

Is this a serious question? I've already been screamed at by the CR die hards for derailing the thread so deleted my response but give me a break.

[Gil Bang 25,907]

 

[Mo Horn 8,825]

Just now, JFKFC said:

Is slavery a personal choice? No, it is completely wrong. Some things are completely wrong. Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

Now, as I said, if there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate a pregnancy, that is a decision for a medical professional. That is not something to be legislated.

I never said I didn't agree with you about it being wrong. I said this has nothing to do with that. It's about personal rights and choice. I think pickled beets are disgusting, but I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on someone else because I think they're disgusting. Personally, I am anti-abortion, but it's not about me and my beliefs. It's about choice.

[Starfleet Command 441]

Why would you not throw in jail (if not execute) a woman who has procured an abortion if you believe abortion is murder?  I've never understood that position.

[Brisketexan 105,059]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

Men should not leave women out on this limb by themselves. Empathy requires support of any policy or procedure that advances, promotes and protects women’s health.

Dude....I appreciate your sense of humor.

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

So now first trimester fetuses are "children"?

Gotcha.

This is the openly stated end-game.  Fetal personhood.  So, it is NOT left to the states.  The next step is either holding just that, that all fetuses are persons, and therefore entitled to all legal protections, OR allowing a law so that when a citizen of Texas travels to California for an abortion, it is deemed by Texas to be illegal travel for the purpose of homicide, and they are arrested as soon as their plane lands back in Texas.

This isn't a "let the states decide" issue.  It never was.  Anyone who says that is lying to you, because enough of them have been honest enough to tell us the truth.  And remember, just as they tell you, "Brown v. Board of Education" is next.

[Foosters 17,824]

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

Is this a serious question? I've already been screamed at by the CR die hards for derailing the thread so deleted my response but give me a break.

I'm starting to think you come here only to complain about the way you are treated. 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

7 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Is slavery a personal choice? No, it is completely wrong. Some things are completely wrong. Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

Now, as I said, if there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate a pregnancy, that is a decision for a medical professional. That is not something to be legislated.

You beg the question--you presuppose that what is being aborted is a "child" or a "kid."  Really, you presuppose that something that is nonviable is even capable of being "killed."

[TXSooner518 2,438]

6 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Is slavery a personal choice? No, it is completely wrong. Some things are completely wrong. Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

Now, as I said, if there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate a pregnancy, that is a decision for a medical professional. That is not something to be legislated.

A clump of cells the size of a sunflower seed is not "a healthy child."  Just overwhelmingly absurd framing. And no person has a right to use another person's body for its survival, right?  Where exactly is that found in the constitution?  I may need a kidney transplant later in life, can I just decide to take someone else's kidney to support me staying alive? No? Oh I see.  

[Captainant 27,627]

7 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong.

 

7 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

 

 a fetus is not a "healthy child" or a "kid". It's a fetus. Unless you're of the opinion that every fertilized egg in an IVF facility should actually be considered a "person" for census and voting apportionments?

[Brisketexan 105,059]

2 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

Why would you not throw in jail (if not execute) a woman who has procured an abortion if you believe abortion is murder?  I've never understood that position.

Correct.  It is the only sane and logical outcome.  If a fetus = a baby after birth, then a woman hiring out an abortion is no different than a woman engaging a hitman to smother her baby in the crib.  She should face the death penalty for such a heinous crime.  Logical consistency dictates no lesser result.

[Serak The Preparer 3,431]

10 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Is slavery a personal choice? No, it is completely wrong. Some things are completely wrong. Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

Now, as I said, if there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate a pregnancy, that is a decision for a medical professional. That is not something to be legislated.

What about rape / incest? Isn't "killing a kid" wrong regardless of the means of conception? And if "killing a kid" is wrong, how is defensible to not be on the front line trying to kill nurses and doctors? Should you not be trying to physically stop them with all of your might if they are killing kids?

[Vegas64 673]

At what point does the pre-life become life? Maybe that is where the consensus and law needs to be clear first, as a foundation.

[Starfleet Command 441]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  It is the only sane and logical outcome.  If a fetus = a baby after birth, then a woman hiring out an abortion is no different than a woman engaging a hitman to smother her baby in the crib.  She should face the death penalty for such a heinous crime.  Logical consistency dictates no lesser result.

It would be a monstrous crime.  No different than a mother throwing her newborn into the dumpster.  Deep down though, I don't think many people really buy that shit.  Not even the Sacks of the world.  If they did there would be much more violence directed against providers.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You beg the question--you presuppose that what is being aborted is a "child" or a "kid."  Really, you presuppose that something that is nonviable is even capable of being "killed."

Science says you are no longer alive once you lack a heartbeat and brain activity.  Seems like the presence of both, ergo, means your life has begun.

 

[DDD Dad 14,325]

4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

At what point does the pre-life become life? Maybe that is where the consensus and law needs to be clear first, as a foundation.

It's like you guys have never read Roe.

[Brisketexan 105,059]

2 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

It would be a monstrous crime.  No different than a mother throwing her newborn into the dumpster.  Deep down though, I don't think many people really buy that shit.  Not even the Sacks of the world.  If they did there would be much more violence directed against providers.

Well, I'm sick of half measures.  I don't understand why our legislature is so gutless and cowardly that they will not make infanticide a capital offense.  We must protect our babies (which includes all the way back to zygote phase).  Our Texas government's failure to protect the most vulnerable among us with the strongest possible criminal penalties is a moral failing that I can neither forgive, nor forget.  I will not vote for an candidate for office in Texas who does not take the proper moral stand and support the death penalty for a woman who aborts and murders her baby.

It's not much more complicated than that.  if you want to take a stand, then fucking TAKE it.  Otherwise, you're a fucking coward.

[SimonBolivar 10,957]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Science says

 

Lol

[Starfleet Command 441]

lmao

 

[JBJ 3,654]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You beg the question--you presuppose that what is being aborted is a "child" or a "kid."  Really, you presuppose that something that is nonviable is even capable of being "killed."

Being nonviable outside the womb is completely different than going inside the womb to kill a fetus.  It's clearly viable life being killed in the situations worth discussing.

The pertinent question is a matter of personhood, or how much that life has value, if any.

[TexArcher 37,761]

25 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

So now first trimester fetuses are "children"?

Gotcha.

Yes, just like eggs are chickens.  Same thing.  Baby Jesus out front shoulda told ya.

Edited May 3, 2022 by TexArcher

[Lucid 3]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

One question for you: is the source of individual rights only an express grant of a right in the plain language of the Constitution? Asked more plainly, is the Constitution the sole font that grants individual rights, and there are no rights of the individual other than those expressly enumerated therein?

For legal rights no I don't think the constitution is the sole font, they can be spelled out by lesser laws than the constitution. I don't think a legal right can exist unless spelled out by a law. As I said in above post I think in this case an attempt was made to build a house on sand.

For rights in more absolute sense ('God-given', 'moral', 'natural' rights etc.) I have no idea where they come from or even if they are real. Like most everyone I act and think as if they are.

[TexArcher 37,761]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Science says you are no longer alive once you lack a heartbeat and brain activity.  Seems like the presence of both, ergo, means your life has begun.

 

This could be page 1 of an Introduction to Logic textbook.  First exercise, class: what's wrong with this statement?

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,100]

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

There are 10+ pages of outrage and analysis about the substance.  Frankly, I showed up to read the latter from the actual lawyers as I haven't had a chance to read the opinion in full and unfortunately there isn't going to be a Daily Texan thread on this topic (where overly emotional constant state of rage posters like you and others are less likely to dictate what opinions are and are not appropriate). 

There are a shitload of people who think because I have certain parts I am not entitled to have autonomy over my body.  You are goddamned right I am angry and full of rage.

[Brisketexan 105,059]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Being nonviable outside the womb is completely different than going inside the womb to kill a fetus.  It's clearly viable life being killed in the situations worth discussing.

The pertinent question is a matter of personhood, or how much that life has value, if any.

That has been decided in Texas -- we've already banned all abortion (to become effective 30 days after this opinion is formally released).

My question is why the leaders of Texas are such moral cowards and refuse to use our laws to fully protect the most vulnerable?  We should execute all women who would hire a hitman to kill their baby.  I can think of no more heinous crime.  Any politician who refuses to take that stand is morally unfit to hold office.  Won't you stand with me in demanding courage from our leaders?

[JBJ 3,654]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

It's like you guys have never read Roe.

Roe couldn't answer that which is why we have Casey.

[Brisketexan 105,059]

2 minutes ago, Lucid said:

For legal rights no I don't think the constitution is the sole font, they can be spelled out by lesser laws than the constitution. I don't think a legal right can exist unless spelled out by a law. As I said in above post I think in this case an attempt was made to build a house on sand.

For rights in more absolute sense ('God-given', 'moral', 'natural' rights etc.) I have no idea where they come from or even if they are real. Like most everyone I act and think as if they are.

Cool.  So, rights of the individual come from the government.  That's the shorthand version of your answer.  We have only those rights our masters choose to grant us.  Cool.

[4th&Five 41,506]

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

9 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

lmao

 

The GOP has not moved its position on abortion.  It's always been against Roe.

[Brisketexan 105,059]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

The GOP has not moved its position on abortion.  It's always been against Roe.

Do you stand with me in supporting legislation making the act of a mother hiring a hitman to murder her child a capital offense?   Only a sick bastard who supports letting women get away with murder-for-hire of their own children would oppose that.  Don't you agree?

[wildcat09 29,344]

26 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Is this a serious question? I've already been screamed at by the CR die hards for derailing the thread so deleted my response but give me a break.

It was completely serious.

I get why the justices like to keep things secret, because it insulates them from attention and accountability. But I don't see why I, as an American citizen, should consider that a good thing.

[TXSooner518 2,438]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

The GOP has not moved its position on abortion.  It's always been against Roe.

Sure, except where the Supreme Court with 8 justices appointed by GOP presidents issued its opinion in PP v. Casey. And where GOP senators harrumphed about the idea that these vacuous cunt appointees would overturn it. 

Just absolutely reprehensible and sub-human that in the year 2022 we are literally citing jurists who executed "witches" and opined that a woman's pussy was her husband's property for input on women's rights today. Fuck everyone in the face who even tries to justify that horseshit. Un-American cave-dwelling scum. 

[Gourmand 7,774]

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

There are a shitload of people who think because I have certain parts I am not entitled to have autonomy over my body.  You are goddamned right I am angry and full of rage.

@PenelopeWitherspoon @Bama Chick

 

 

I am angry as fuck but my anger must pale in comparison to the women in my life and those on this board who awoke to this news this morning or heard it last night. I am sorry this country is so fucked and I stand with all women in support of reproductive rights. 

FUCK ALL REPUBLICANS AND ANYONE WHO STILL SUPPORTS THEM.

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Science says you are no longer alive once you lack a heartbeat and brain activity.  Seems like the presence of both, ergo, means your life has begun.

 

 

11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Being nonviable outside the womb is completely different than going inside the womb to kill a fetus.  It's clearly viable life being killed in the situations worth discussing.

The pertinent question is a matter of personhood, or how much that life has value, if any.

And that's fair.  Because @Johnny Sack doesn't care about "life"--he's not a vegetarian.  He only purportedly cares about human life.

But as to "going inside the womb to kill," I suppose that depends a lot on what method we're talking about.  If it is a pharmaceutical abortion, then nobody is going inside anywhere.  It's just that the nonviable fetus is expelled.  And being expelled from its shelter, the nonviable fetus cannot survive (which kind of makes it materially distinguishable from a human).

And Johnny should love that.  After all, we all know how much he hates the homeless.

[Lucid 3]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  So, rights of the individual come from the government.  That's the shorthand version of your answer.  We have only those rights our masters choose to grant us.  Cool.

Yes might makes right

[TexArcher 37,761]

3 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

@PenelopeWitherspoon @Bama Chick

 

 

I am angry as fuck but my anger must pale in comparison to the women in my life and those on this board who awoke to this news this morning or heard it last night. I am sorry this country is so fucked and I stand with all women in support of reproductive rights. 

FUCK ALL REPUBLICANS AND ANYONE WHO STILL SUPPORTS THEM.

Dismembering children, he says.  Fuck that sanctimonious windbag, sock puppet, horrible American piece of shit.

[The Ace of Aces 5,175]

Fly-by post to say fuck this country, fuck Mitch McConnell and fuck anyone who supports the oppression of a gender and is OK with taking away a constitutional right. 

 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The GOP has not moved its position on abortion.  It's always been against Roe.

That is demonstrably not true.

[Brisketexan 105,059]

1 minute ago, Lucid said:

Yes might makes right

Your honesty is appreciated.  It's definitely appreciated by every aspiring authoritarian ruler.  But again, I appreciate your candor.

[SimonBolivar 10,957]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That is demonstrably not true.

Well yeah but besides that time and any other examples you can find.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8,817]

Fly-by post to say fuck this country, fuck Mitch McConnell and fuck anyone who supports the oppression of a gender and is OK with taking away a constitutional right. 
 

Lmfao. The left was questioning what a woman was 15 hrs ago. Take your fake rage and fuck yourself with it, you bitch.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That is demonstrably not true.

"The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."

[BHMCruiser 1,813]

44 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Go fuck yourself, but before you do I demand you get a vasectomy.

Did your wife explain abortion to you, too?

 

Maybe she could just post instead of you. Cut out the middle person.

[DDD Dad 14,325]

3 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Lmfao. The left was questioning what a woman was 15 hrs ago. Take your fake rage and fuck yourself with it, you bitch.

This really adds to the discussion.  Well done.

[JBJ 3,654]

8 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Just absolutely reprehensible and sub-human that in the year 2022 we are literally citing jurists who executed "witches" and opined that a woman's pussy was her husband's property for input on women's rights today. Fuck everyone in the face who even tries to justify that horseshit. Un-American cave-dwelling scum. 

Roe does also.  Most substantive due process cases will cite Hale, Coke, Blackstone, etc al.  Because ECL is where historical support for various unenumerated rights come from.