The Supremes

[Goofyboy 3300]

Stats, number of abortions someone has had, etc is all filler. The bottom line is that no one has access to use your body without consent. Not the government, not a fetus, not a doctor - no one. That’s what is on the chopping block.

That goes away and Pandora’s box opens for government fuckery.

[gmr548 16617]

4 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Stats, number of abortions someone has had, etc is all filler. The bottom line is that no one has access to use your body without consent. Not the government, not a fetus, not a doctor - no one. That’s what is on the chopping block.

That goes away and Pandora’s box opens for government fuckery.

Yeah, but think of all the liberal tears to be had as we descend into fascism!

Edited May 10, 2022 by gmr548

[Neonmoon 38130]

Comparing killing a 2 year old to a clump of cells in the first trimester pretty much sums up how dumb one side of the argument is

[wildcat09 29447]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Comparing killing a 2 year old to a clump of cells in the first trimester pretty much sums up how dumb one side of the argument is

Of course it's an aggy doing it.

[Nivek 17016]

I know this isn’t your primary point, but that’s precisely why some people came to the New World: they not only wanted to escape persecution, they wanted to establish their own religion as official. Roger Williams in Rhode Island stands out as the early exception. Religious freedom as we think of it was foreign to them.

Pilgrims called it fear of religious persecution. John Pym had no qualms about making fake news reports about Irish killing protestants and causing real slaughter against the Irish Catholics. He also found out that killing a King has consequences and they got the heck out if Dodge after people didn’t flock to their brand of religious extremism.

[Homercles 10206]

So, wearing masks during a pandemic in an enclosed steel tube is a violation of personal freedoms but it’s ok to tell women that it’s murder to terminate an early pregnancy or even try to prevent it with birth control?

[David Dennison 18995]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Nobody is really looking for outcomes oriented solutions that balance the many very complex issues at play. Just rhetoric and talking points. 

And what might those be?

[David Dennison 18995]

nm

Edited May 10, 2022 by David Dennison

[Planet Houston 4942]

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that ocp should be illegal, but I am also not the one telling people here that it increases cardiac risk as a smoke screen for aborting fetuses. 

Nobody’s end goal in any of this is to “abort more fetuses.” For fuck’s sake. 

[Homercles 10206]

And anyone crying about being ganged up on in CR wasn’t around much on TOS when Swam and company were slinging PizzaGate and other assorted bullshit, jumping on anyone who dared to disagree that Obama was ‘ruining our country’. 

[horn4life 3790]

I guess I don't understand the Republican desire for freedom for corporations (they agree with), and businesses  (they agree with), yet feel the need for old white men to spearhead decision making on the medical care of women in our country.

I guess sort of like Alito's misguided opinion, they actually do believe that decisions can be made in a vacuum.  The ability to lie to oneself is now the most critical part of Republican thinking, from the working class voter, to nearly every elected Republican in national office, all the way up to lifetime appointed nefariously appointed Supreme Court members.

And that would make our Founders both cry and cringe.

[Goofyboy 3300]

Alito citing Hale is also really, really disturbing…. Unless you’re a white Christian male extremist, then you’re probably good with women being property.

[Poe It Up 126]

23 minutes ago, Homercles said:

And anyone crying about being ganged up on in CR wasn’t around much on TOS when Swam and company were slinging PizzaGate and other assorted bullshit, jumping on anyone who dared to disagree that Obama was ‘ruining our country’. 

The pendulum has swung the other way now, which usually happens during a correction. Eventually it will swing back towards the middle. 

[B00M 6526]

7 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Alito citing Hale is also really, really disturbing…. Unless you’re a white Christian male extremist, then you’re probably good with women being property.

What? You don't believe in witches? Pfff

[Sawbonz 27721]

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Ask the poster that asserted that "birth control can lead to increased risk of heart disease" what the estimates of excess CV related morality are?  And maybe to contrast them with the excess morbidity and mortality related to serial abortions? 

Link the post and we can discuss it. In the meantime, why don’t you address the questions I asked you instead of deflecting? I’m really not sure why you think any of us think that it is a mainstream opinion to advocate for serial abortion over oral contraceptive use or that we would try and defend that stance.  It’s pretty ridiculous that that would be some kind of counter to what I have been saying. Again, you cannot have a reasonable argument when one side wants to put your daughter in jail for having an IUD. 

[Goofyboy 3300]

What? You don't believe in witches? Pfff

I always wondered why the people burning the witches were the good guys in so many stories…

[Captainant 27889]

3 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

The pendulum has swung the other way now, which usually happens during a correction. Eventually it will swing back towards the middle. 

Lol, equivocating rage over the rescinding of women's rights to the fucking pizzagate conspiracy and early qanon horseshit.

Stay golden, galaxy brain

[Planet Houston 4942]

5 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

The pendulum has swung the other way now, which usually happens during a correction. Eventually it will swing back towards the middle. 

Sorry, are you saying that spewing conspiracy bullshit like Pizzagate is one end of two extremes, and that supporting a woman’s right to choose is the other end?  

[gmr548 16617]

32 minutes ago, Homercles said:

So, wearing masks during a pandemic in an enclosed steel tube is a violation of personal freedoms but it’s ok to tell women that it’s murder to terminate an early pregnancy or even try to prevent it with birth control?

Yes. Absolutely, unironically correct.

 

5 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I guess I don't understand the Republican desire for freedom for corporations (they agree with), and businesses  (they agree with), yet feel the need for old white men to spearhead decision making on the medical care of women in our country.

I guess sort of like Alito's misguided opinion, they actually do believe that decisions can be made in a vacuum.  The ability to lie to oneself is now the most critical part of Republican thinking, from the working class voter, to nearly every elected Republican in national office, all the way up to lifetime appointed nefariously appointed Supreme Court members.

And that would make our Founders both cry and cringe.

No it wouldn't. To them, black people were less than fully human and women were to be seen, not heard. This country was founded as a codified oligarchy of wealthy, property-owning, white, Christian men, and the GOP's "originalism" is about getting as close to that ideal as possible.

[Sawbonz 27721]

13 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

A non-fertilized egg?  Yep.

A fertilized egg?  Nope.

No one is saying that having a period is killing a child.  It's a non-fertilized egg.

You are tripling down on stupid. There is no non-religious basis for an argument that a fertilized egg is a  child. Go fuck yourself

[wildcat09 29447]

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Link the post and we can discuss it. In the meantime, why don’t you address the questions I asked you instead of deflecting? I’m really not sure why you think any of us think that it is a mainstream opinion to advocate for serial abortion over oral contraceptive use or that we would try and defend that stance.  It’s pretty ridiculous that that would be some kind of counter to what I have been saying. Again, you cannot have a reasonable argument when one side wants to put your daughter in jail for having an IUD. 

Welcome to discussing abortion with Ana.

[B00M 6526]

So the pendulum swing to the left after the most divisive US president in modern history, was electing *checks notes* Joe Biden... and a split Congress? So this undoing of 50 years of freedom that multiple generations of young people have enjoyed was a "predictable correction to the middle"? 1 in 5 people, tops, want what's coming to states like Texas. Middle.

 

[Starfleet Command 441]

9 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Yes. Absolutely, unironically correct.

 

No it wouldn't. To them, black people were less than fully human and women were to be seen, not heard. This country was founded as a codified oligarchy of wealthy, property-owning, white, Christian men, and the GOP's "originalism" is about getting as close to that ideal as possible.

It's so comical that some conservatives are so deluded as to actually believe that "originalism" does not provide judges with the same cover to do whatever the fuck they want as any other heuristic for interpreting the US constitution.  At this point it would only be mildly surprising to see one of  Dinesh D'Souza's "history" books being cited in a majority opinion.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2853]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

And what might those be?

Get in line.  I have a question for anastasis that is pending.

[elfenix 34366]

26 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

The pendulum has swung the other way now, which usually happens during a correction. Eventually it will swing back towards the middle. 

nah, what happened is that neg rep is worth the same as pos rep.  on the old board software it was 1/10 or a 30th or some other shit.  so a neg rep train just didn't make a shit on the old one, so long as there was any pos rep coming.  so swam and co could neg and get negged and since it only took like 1 other to create a circlejerk back then it was almost impossible to neg someone to bolivia. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by elfenix

[Poe It Up 126]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lol, equivocating rage over the rescinding of women's rights to the fucking pizzagate conspiracy and early qanon horseshit.

Stay golden, galaxy brain

Again with the insults, I’m close to calling of the truce. 
 

I didn’t think that it needed to be stated that it was a comment about the board in general, rather than this particular discussion on abortion. 

[Poe It Up 126]

18 minutes ago, Planet Houston said:

Sorry, are you saying that spewing conspiracy bullshit like Pizzagate is one end of two extremes, and that supporting a woman’s right to choose is the other end?  

Did you not read the comment I quoted? It was about being ganged up on for your views in this forum. Google context clues. 

[Planet Houston 4942]

2 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Again with the insults, I’m close to calling of the truce. 
 

I didn’t think that it needed to be stated that it was a comment about the board in general, rather than this particular discussion on abortion. 

You’re correct - this board has “swung” to the “left” as the GOP and those who support today’s version of it have become Christofascist. 

Where you’re wrong is that it ain’t coming back. Y’all are way too fucking gone. 

[B00M 6526]

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Did you not read the comment I quoted? It was about being ganged up on for your views in this forum. Google context clues. 

The only person that really seems to neg over respectfully presented supported opinions is Penelope. She goes scorched earth. Just read the room rather than bitching about it.

[wildcat09 29447]

2 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's so comical that some conservatives are so deluded as to actually believe that "originalism" does not provide judges with the same cover to do whatever the fuck they want as any other heuristic for interpreting the US constitution.  At this point it would only be mildly surprising to see one of  Dinesh D'Souza's "history" books being cited in a majority opinion.

This is a bit of an aside, but a sixth circuit panel recently cited Bari Weiss’ substack in a decision granting qualified immunity to cops who very clearly violated the first amendment by arresting a guy who ran a parody Facebook page they didn’t like.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

44 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Alito citing Hale is also really, really disturbing…. Unless you’re a white Christian male extremist, then you’re probably good with women being property.

Was it equally disturbing when Blackmun cited Hale in Roe v. Wade?

[Sawbonz 27721]

4 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Did you not read the comment I quoted? It was about being ganged up on for your views in this forum. Google context clues. 

 I am never going to vote for a party that advocates for suppressing a person’s right to vote. I’m never going to vote for a party that supports violent insurrection in response to an unwanted outcome from a free and fair election. I am never going to vote for a party whose members introduce legislation to put women in jail for using contraception or terminating pregnancies before 17 weeks. If you think that makes me a liberal you need your head examined. 

[Poe It Up 126]

5 minutes ago, Planet Houston said:

You’re correct - this board has “swung” to the “left” as the GOP and those who support today’s version of it have become Christofascist. 

Where you’re wrong is that it ain’t coming back. Y’all are way too fucking gone. 

You’re being dramatic. But that’s the beauty of the anonymity that comes with the internet, it allows one to express their viewpoint in a decidedly more strident fashion. 

[Sawbonz 27721]

8 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

You’re being dramatic. But that’s the beauty of the anonymity that comes with the internet, it allows one to express their viewpoint in a decidedly more strident fashion. 

There is legislation in Louisiana up for a vote that would make having an abortion in the first weeks of gestation felony murder. We are moving towards a theocracy. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Poe It Up 126]

8 minutes ago, B00M said:

The only person that really seems to neg over respectfully presented supported opinions is Penelope. She goes scorched earth. Just read the room rather than bitching about it.

Having been on the receiving end, I know it’s far more than that; however, I’m sympathetic to your viewpoint that nobody likes a whiner. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13595]

1 hour ago, Goofyboy said:

Stats, number of abortions someone has had, etc is all filler. The bottom line is that no one has access to use your body without consent. Not the government, not a fetus, not a doctor - no one. That’s what is on the chopping block.

That goes away and Pandora’s box opens for government fuckery.

Pretend it's Carter Page that needs an abortion. 

[Sawbonz 27721]

 

[Planet Houston 4942]

11 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

You’re being dramatic. But that’s the beauty of the anonymity that comes with the internet, it allows one to express their viewpoint in a decidedly more strident fashion. 

I am not being dramatic whatsoever. Please tell me what was sensationalized. I’d love to hear how I’m wrong. 

[wildcat09 29447]

The other "rational, good faith" conservatives have learned from Ana to just never say what they believe except that they think everyone else is too emotional. 

[Brisketexan 105490]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The "abortion issue" will not and cannot be solved with "legal solutions". Legal solutions are not really solutions for most things, abortion included, and most will only take us backwards. I don't think that Roe was a good ruling, but I don't think that overturning Roe fixes anything and will only make the entire environment more toxic. A significant number of abortions, ~ 100k per year per CDC, are serial cases where the women involved had 2+ prior abortions. Start there in terms of building some common ground, and work outwards. These are situations where the psychological and medical ramifications are pretty obvious. We can't and should not count on the government, but if people on both sides of the issue could disengage from the politics and focus on some actual real world praxis, we maybe could get somewhere.  Picture an MLF type organization focused on addressing abortion in the same way and context that they address homelessness.  

Oh, please do discuss the underlined.  And realize that a key element here is NOT that Roe was about abortion, but rather....about the right to privacy and the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about their own bodies/bodily autonomy.  For example, do you have a problem with Griswold, which is based on the same right to privacy?  How about Lawrence v. Texas?  How about Obergefell, and Loving, which are similarly grounded?

Alito and his GQP minions have told us what overturning Roe is really about: CONTROL.  When people tell you who they are, you should believe them.  Read the opinion.  Then watch what GQP leaders are scrambling to do nationwide in the wake of the opinion: It is about controlling any number of your private, personal decisions and activities.   Shit, damned near all of them.  No "right to privacy" about personal decisions in your home means that the government can make decisions -- including forbidding certain options/behaviors -- with respect to contraception, your sexual activities, shit, your food choices, you name it, it's now not off limits to government regulation.   SPOILER: Roe is only nominally about "abortion."  "Abortion" is a stalking horse for "government control of your private life."  THAT IS THE STORY HERE.  THE STORY IS NOT ABORTION.  THE STORY IS THE DOOR NOW BEING WIDE OPEN TO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF YOUR PRIVATE LIFE.

So, yes, "legal solutions" -- including protecting certain rights -- fucking matter.  They are what stand in between the ability of angry and frustrated neanderthals imposing their retrograde will on others by force of law.

So tell us, do you think that Griswold and Lawrence, for example, are also not "good rulings?"

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19182]

25 minutes ago, B00M said:

The only person that really seems to neg over respectfully presented supported opinions is Penelope. She goes scorched earth. Just read the room rather than bitching about it.

Ana, Ag with Kids, and Johnny Sack are not respectfully presenting supported opinions.  They are trolls, misogynists, and anti-American.  There is ZERO point in engaging.  Neg them and move on.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19182]

20 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

You’re being dramatic. But that’s the beauty of the anonymity that comes with the internet, it allows one to express their viewpoint in a decidedly more strident fashion. 

This is dramatic because we are being threatened with the greatest contraction of the rights of women ever.  I know, you are a man, so we are being dramatic for wanting autonomy over our bodies.

[hpslugga 4068]

1 hour ago, Planet Houston said:

Nobody’s end goal in any of this is to “abort more fetuses.” For fuck’s sake. 

That’s all part of the act. They absolutely have to distort the opposition in order to hope it’ll bring credibility to their position.

But it doesn’t really work that way in reality.

If it’s my position, for example, that KBJ’s nomination is going to spell doom for America because the floodgates of kindergarten teachers lecturing 5 year olds about transgender issues and critical race theory, and that anyone who opposes me is a pedophile, I’m either an asshole, insane, or insanely stupid.

Any which way, I wouldn’t have either a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out just because I falsely accused the “other side” of wanting to fuck children. This is seriously how low mainstream discourse has gotten, and @Anastasis feeds right into it.

Just now, wildcat09 said:

The other "rational, good faith" conservatives have learned from Ana to just never say what they believe except that they think everyone else is too emotional. 

Again, part of the act.

[Captainant 27889]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, please do discuss the underlined.  And realize that a key element here is NOT that Roe was about abortion, but rather....about the right to privacy and the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about their own bodies/bodily autonomy.  For example, do you have a problem with Griswold, which is based on the same right to privacy?  How about Lawrence v. Texas?  How about Obergefell, and Loving, which are similarly grounded?

Alito and his GQP minions have told us what overturning Roe is really about: CONTROL.  When people tell you who they are, you should believe them.  Read the opinion.  Then watch what GQP leaders are scrambling to do nationwide in the wake of the opinion: It is about controlling any number of your private, personal decisions and activities.   Shit, damned near all of them.  No "right to privacy" about personal decisions in your home means that the government can make decisions -- including forbidding certain options/behaviors -- with respect to contraception, your sexual activities, shit, your food choices, you name it, it's now not off limits to government regulation.   SPOILER: Roe is only nominally about "abortion."  "Abortion" is a stalking horse for "government control of your private life."  THAT IS THE STORY HERE.  THE STORY IS NOT ABORTION.  THE STORY IS THE DOOR NOW BEING WIDE OPEN TO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF YOUR PRIVATE LIFE.

So, yes, "legal solutions" -- including protecting certain rights -- fucking matter.  They are what stand in between the ability of angry and frustrated neanderthals imposing their retrograde will on others by force of law.

So tell us, do you think that Griswold and Lawrence, for example, are also not "good rulings?"

Annie's entire professional career is predicated on controlling and denying people's access to healthcare and lifesaving treatment. No shit he takes glee in creating more levers to control personal healthcare decisions and deny care

[wildcat09 29447]

18 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It would be the most Dem shit ever to pass a law to beef up protection based on a fake right-wing story about Alito needing to be moved to an undisclosed location, indicating that they think pro-choice people are violent radicals and will gladly feed Republican propaganda about how radical their voters supposedly are, before they even tried to pass anything protecting abortion rights.

This is what Democrats raced so hard to protect SCOTUS justices against:

 

Alito's and Kavanaugh's own fucking neighbors are encouraging the protests and national Democrats can't help but be terrified about how the GOP might use the protests against them. 

I've compared them to the Washington Generals frequently in the past, but I'm starting to think that that's unfair to the Washington Generals. There's something deeply, psychologically wrong with Democratic leadership.

[bonnieblue 542]

Abortion rights (and other similar rights) seem to particularly aggravate entitled and narcissistic people. All the discussions around it always come back to how it makes them “feel”. The women, the unborn, and any larger societal forces at play seem to have little to no bearing on their analysis of the situation. It always filters back to the lens of “how it makes ME feel”. I’m not sure whether the abortion issue is so triggering to them because it provokes them into thinking “what if I didn’t exist?” and that thought is too much to bear to the narcissistic and overly-entitled mind.

I think a well-adjusted mind can reason that if I didn’t exist, I would have no way of knowing that, and it wouldn’t be so terrible. I digress.

 

[wildcat09 29447]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Ana, Ag with Kids, and Johnny Sack are not respectfully presenting supported opinions.  They are trolls, misogynists, and anti-American.  There is ZERO point in engaging.  Neg them and move on.

Ana and Sack troll. AWK is just a dumb aggy posting his honest takes.

[Nivek 17016]

14 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

That's because you have a rep for attacking every single poster that even remotely seems conservative by carpet bombing them with neg reps.  I was only trying to keep that offline for politeness and also to not derail the thread.  But...you keep doing you I guess...

Actually you are only half-correct.   It is not the conservative angle that she is negging, but rather the disingenuous angles that she is negging.  That most of you self-proclaimed conservatives line up with the latter definition is why you are in her cross-hairs.   

Yes this is an emotional discussion for her because it directly impacts her.  It is an emotional discussion for others because it can directly impact them as well.   We have had folks on here express how they are discriminated against, but because we couldn't see it, we couldn't understand.  That gay marriage became protected, it was a huge deal for them and the threat of repeal amounts to the stripping of their rights.

I am of the belief that none of you are actually conservatives.  It is just a moniker that you wrapped yourself in, without any understanding of its meaning.  I think looking to the old ways of solving problems is a good strategy for understanding how people did it in the past and how to use that as a stepping stone to our future.  This is great when we had to design the M1 helmet (by using studying the technology of medieval helmets) but ancestor worship has its trappings, especially when mysticism comes into play.   Furthermore, do you think it is very conservative or traditional of you to argue with a woman online or to say nasty things to her with DMs?   The reason you do not illicit respect is because you do not warrant it, and you do not command it.    

I think you are a bit thin skinned.  I think like most self-proclaimed conservatives you do not understand what that word means.  I think like most right wingers, you are fine with turning a blind eye to blatant fuckery and corruption within your own party because probably the others are doing it as well (they are not).   I think something in your brain makes you desire to be ruled and support dictators.   I think you are fine with harming others because you see yourself as the real victim.  I think you are fine with killing democracy because it is your side that is doing it.  I think you are fine with revisionist history because the truth is unkind to you.  

The right to the domain over one's body has to be part of the law.  The right to privacy has to be part of the law.   Life, liberty, and property are repeated in the the Bill of Rights (or Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -> Declaration of Independence).   Abortion impacts the woman's life.  It impacts her liberty, and impacts her property (money) and her most precocious property, her body, and her happiness (not having a kid she doesn't want).   How you self-proclaimed conservatives overlook simply tells me that you are not conservatives.   You can lawyer it up all you want but it is right fucking there in the Declaration and the Constitutional Amendments.   

 

[Saint Austin 745]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

Despite my better judgment I'm dipping my toe into this thread here. But would a lawyer who's better than me explain how Congress could pass a law codifying Roe? Even if it did pass such a law, wouldn't the SCOTUS have the same ability to strike down Roe, as well as that law, kicking it back to the states?

[wildcat09 29447]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

That’s all part of the act. They absolutely have to distort the opposition in order to hope it’ll bring credibility to their position.

But it doesn’t really work that way in reality.

If it’s my position, for example, that KBJ’s nomination is going to spell doom for America because the floodgates of kindergarten teachers lecturing 5 year olds about transgender issues and critical race theory, and that anyone who opposes me is a pedophile, I’m either an asshole, insane, or insanely stupid.

Any which way, I wouldn’t have either a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out just because I falsely accused the “other side” of wanting to fuck children. This is seriously how low mainstream discourse has gotten, and @Anastasis feeds right into it.

Again, part of the act.

My summary, from December:

Troll: "You're all racist eugenicists!"

Everyone else: "Fuck you, troll"

Troll: "Why can't we find some reasonable common ground? I think you guys should stop being crazy with your opposition to Longhorn victories and come around to my view that it's actually good when the Longhorns win games!"