The Left Says I Shouldn't Exist, Kathy Barnette
- Thread starter Truck Fump / h1b
- Start date
This is why Roe v Wade is good to end - return this to the state - and allow so many of us to no longer need to align with the shitheads that would force a rape victim to carry to term.
I am not with them, and I doubt many states will be with them. They can form the Earth is 6,000 year old party and have a platform that will force rape victims to carry to term and see how they won't be in debates or get on ballots because they are extreme morons that virtually nobody agrees with
I am not with them, and I doubt many states will be with them. They can form the Earth is 6,000 year old party and have a platform that will force rape victims to carry to term and see how they won't be in debates or get on ballots because they are extreme morons that virtually nobody agrees with
Jade Dragon
And I'm the one that jaded you.
Both Kathy and Asshat are really full of shit. Do they really not understand what the left says? Is it going to take a pro-life leftist to explain things? Leftists don't give two shits if you exist or not, Kathy. They want women to have a choice that we pro-lifers find unsettling. Even many pro-lifers will still bat for women's choice if it involves rape or incest.
Now, do I next have to explain why tales of I'm this or that on Twitter is one of the most unverified source you can give? You'd have to be a real dope to take comments like this without a heap of grains of salt. Or in this case, an asshat.
Now, do I next have to explain why tales of I'm this or that on Twitter is one of the most unverified source you can give? You'd have to be a real dope to take comments like this without a heap of grains of salt. Or in this case, an asshat.
That's easy to say from the privileged position of someone who can afford to travel to another state for an abortion, or even to relocate permanently. But it's going to cause a lot of suffering for poorer people.
Plus, this may well just be one step in the process. If the Republicans get control of the House, Senate, and presidency again, what's to prevent them from passing a law banning abortion nationally? If it's no longer Constitutionally protected, they could absolutely do that as a matter of regulating interstate commerce. Then it becomes even more of a hardship for those without much money.... flying to Europe or Canada for an abortion would be a minor thing for someone like me to get a legal abortion, but a lot of people wouldn't be able to come up with a few thousand dollars on short notice that way.
Even for us, what's to prevent the Republicans from passing a rule that says child-bearing-aged women need to come out negative on a pregnancy test to travel abroad? There'd no longer be any Constitutional right to privacy, since the Supreme Court conservatives will have wiped their ass with that as part of getting Roe repealed, so why couldn't they impose that, too? Then what? I suppose those of us in the northern states could travel by land to Canada -- it would be harder to impose that kind of pee test then. But even that could be done -- just do border checks on outgoing people the same way you do on incoming people. Next thing you know, you've got women trying to sneak across the border away from US patrols, as if this were the Republic of Gilead.
Really, the only thing blocking that kind of future is the fact that Republican politicians might not want to force that on their own mistresses, so they might stick only to the changes that can be easily circumvented by those with money.
necessity is the mother of all invention. mobilize and find a way to help those that fall through the cracks – that is what America does!
The issue is too controversial to be a national law. Just as Mexico can differ in their opinion on abortion, Alabama and California can come to a different consensus on how to govern. As an added benefit the nation will be more unified as a result as decisions become more local. The increased consent of the governed only makes us stronger.
The ruling never made sense. A right to privacy sounds great, but it doesn’t exist for anything else. If this law was applied universally, the FDA would not be able to control what medicine we are allowed to take in private as once example of the obvious contradictions it created.
Too many on social media are making this a gender war. Men are not to blame. Women make up 51% of the population, and plenty of women disagreed with this legislation. Hell, Ruth Bader Ginsberg disagreed with it for her own reasons and felt it was a bad law.
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
What makes you imagine that? Keep in mind, it's been the law for almost 50 years now, despite being controversial.
Sure it does. For example, Lawrence v. Texas, expressly drawing on the reasoning of Roe v. Wade, affirmed that a right of privacy exists, and that it renders unconstitutional laws like the one in Texas that punished private consensual sexual acts between adults (in that particular case, gay sex).
The large majority of the politicians (and judges) whose votes are resulting in this right being stripped away are men. That's simply a fact. And the scumbags who appointed these particular justices were men, and were voted into power despite the opposition of women. That doesn't mean all men are to blame. But, yes, the majority of the blame for this falls on men. As for Ginsburg, she never voted to strike down Roe, despite a long tenure as a federal judge.
It is a huge issue on the right and has been since its inception. Rather than vote based on foreign policy, we vote based on this issue - and I will be happy to see that stop!
We have not had an amendment passed in over 30 years - so your stat isn't so meaningful to me. The political climate has made it difficult, that alone is not a defense
It won't. It just moves the battleground. The left will fight to get a nationwide abortion right by statute, while the right will fight to get a nationwide abortion ban by statute. It will actually EXPAND the political distortion this causes, because previously the attention was on the President and Senate (where Supreme Court appointments are decided). Now the House elections will also be driven by abortion politics, since they'll also have a say in such laws.
Why would the lack of an amendment in 30 years have any impact on whether you think it's been meaningful that legalized abortion has been the law for almost half a century? I'm not following your reasoning here.
Which is what should happen - and precisely why Ruth Bader Ginsburg was opposed to the law.
they will try - but they don't have the political capital to succeed.
Again - some will try - but they do not have the political capital to succeed.
The vast majority of Americans want some limits on abortion - and those limits will vary greatly by region
Both of those camps are extremists and can now form a new extremist party to fight for their extreme views. I will say I wish them luck, but that is a lie
it wouldn't - nor would the fact it has been a law for 50 years have any meaningful distinction. Slavery exists longer - who fucking gives a shit
She had issues with how it was decided, but never supported getting rid of it. Let's not rewrite history.
For a man, that can be a fun spectator support. For a fertile woman, the stakes are considerably higher.
We'll see. But, regardless, it makes it so abortion will become even more of a distorting factor in our politics.
The majority want abortion to be legal, and yet it won't be in a number of places... which is just fine if you're rich and can travel, but is going to be a horrific tragedy for others.
Imagine, though, I had said something intensely stupid like "slavery is too controversial to be decided nationally" -- wouldn't it be worth pointing out that, in fact, we have decided the matter nationally, and that it's been many, many generations since we were a house divided against itself in that sense?
I did not say anything of the sort - let's not put words in my mouth
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
you should then argue states rights and unconstitutionality.
the constitution works for everyone.
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
Hitler loved Margaret Sanger and eugenics. The same eugenics you advocate for. That's Nazi thinking on "your side".
Last edited:
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
No, you're full of shit. Leftists always advocate for the Nazi-ish eugenics, I challenge you to show me any "pro-life" leftists.
They view unsupported children as a burden on the state.
Who gives a fuck what you think or who you have on ignore?
I do not advocate for eugenics, Matt. I advocate for allowing a woman to have control over her own body...to be the final arbiter over the question of whether or not to continue a pregnancy occurring in HER OWN BODY.
I am arguing that she, with the advise of her doctor if she chooses, have the RIGHT to make that decision. You, on the other hand, are advocating for GOVERNMENT to make that decision...and that she be criminalized for not following the government's order on the matter.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
maybe because she wants to be alive........do you really think any of the million children that have been aborted every year since Roe v Wade happened didn't want to be alive.....
wrong, we are arguing that the citizens of California does not get to overrule the citizens in Alabama about laws that only effect the citizens in Alabama.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
but banging clam isn't a big part of your life.