Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

a reply to: carewemust

See pot laws as an example. However this is a much higher moral law.

a reply to: Nyiah

I appreciate your input nonetheless as well as others, however I was referring to confidentiality.

Do we allow the defendant in a court case to join the jury in deliberation???

Um, no we do not.

That's pretty much what has happened here and going forward, what's going to be done to reinstate whatever confidence the citizenry had before this blatant act of political espionage???

originally posted by: tamusan

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: marg6043
Well I am pro abortion thankfully it was available when in case I was in need of it and I am glad my daughter have that right also.

Now women will have to go to blue states if they need them.

This not about killing fetuses, is about the women rights to their own bodies. But hey call it whatever you want.

Well I am pro abortion thankfully it was available when in case I was in need of it and I am glad my daughter have that right also.

Pretty cavalier of you. You make the availability of abortion sound like its an extra flashlight in your glove box.

Now women will have to go to blue states if they need them.

Hey... different states have different laws concerning guns, why should this be any different?
Killing is killing, no?

This not about killing fetuses, is about the women rights to their own bodies. But hey call it whatever you want.

You're right. It's about women's right to kill their own fetuses. But hey call it whatever you want.

Why can't this be discussed without attacks on someone because she's pro choice?

Not to negate the rest of your response but honestly...is that really the type of person you want to represent, the kind of person who thinks killing your own child is a choice?

ETA: How can you have this position and at the same time have a "live and let live" philosophy?

Does that only apply to those that are already here? No babies, huh?

How about "each to their own"? If you can't live with having an abortion, don't have one. Like vaccines.

Mmm, no.... "each to their own" STILL doesn't cover the child and we're not (censored) farm animals FFS.

Are you sure about that?

Right? Lol

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: marg6043
Well I am pro abortion thankfully it was available when in case I was in need of it and I am glad my daughter have that right also.

Now women will have to go to blue states if they need them.

This not about killing fetuses, is about the women rights to their own bodies. But hey call it whatever you want.

Well I am pro abortion thankfully it was available when in case I was in need of it and I am glad my daughter have that right also.

Pretty cavalier of you. You make the availability of abortion sound like its an extra flashlight in your glove box.

Now women will have to go to blue states if they need them.

Hey... different states have different laws concerning guns, why should this be any different?
Killing is killing, no?

This not about killing fetuses, is about the women rights to their own bodies. But hey call it whatever you want.

You're right. It's about women's right to kill their own fetuses. But hey call it whatever you want.

Why can't this be discussed without attacks on someone because she's pro choice?

Not to negate the rest of your response but honestly...is that really the type of person you want to represent, the kind of person who thinks killing your own child is a choice?

ETA: How can you have this position and at the same time have a "live and let live" philosophy?

Does that only apply to those that are already here? No babies, huh?

How about "each to their own"? If you can't live with having an abortion, don't have one. Like vaccines.

Mmm, no.... "each to their own" STILL doesn't cover the child and we're not (censored) farm animals FFS.

Never once did I say we were farm animals. You entirely missed my point.

People will simply never agree on this. One side sees it as black and white, always life, while the other sees a sliding scale where a growth starts within the female, then develops into a child. I simply do not believe it is a "child" in that very first few weeks to a month as this is the same time when many fertilized embryos get flushed out/absorbed due to natural reasons we simply don't know about. Many women experience this, often many times in a lifetime with late, heavier periods.

Sometimes this debate is as crazy as Monty Python's "every sperm is sacred".

a reply to: igloo

Thats why its a wedge issue and timing is everything.


Watch who they pin the leak on and where they end up.

a reply to: marg6043

in curious about three things/ question for you

1. if a fetus in you isnt considered human and protections thereof.. then are you for rescinding laws that if someone WHO YOU DONT WANT TO KILL THE FETUS does not being a murder or attempted murder charge?

2. why cant you just call it ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR ANY REASON AND AT ANY TIME... why hide behind the "womens rights to body and health"?
are you afraid of what it really is (yes follow up question).

3. this is the biggest IMO question.. if its "your body your choice / womens body her choice" then why then does the MALE HAVE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT IF YOU KEEP IT?
seems if its "your choice" and the male has no say.. then the male IS NOT FINANCIALLY RESPONCIBLE FOR THE CHILD .

you cant seem to have it both ways now do you?

to which (another follow up question) why then should the STATE/TAXPAYERS pay for it?

now lets see if i get REAL ANSWERS or just more canned pro abortion ranting.

taking bets

scrounger

originally posted by: rickymouse


It wasn't acceptable to just have the abortion within fifteen weeks, they had to start pushing it to include a lot longer. I think that was an abuse of Roe vs Wade done by the liberals...yes, the law should be destroyed because it was abused so much. It will take a complete reversal of abortion to teach the left to be reasonable I guess.

I'm pro abortion and feel even fifteen weeks is way too long. Making it much longer opened it up to the "killing babies" argument which is counter productive.

You have an interesting perspective on a reversal making the left be reasonable. I wonder if this was "leaked" to create a ruckus among them to show the hypocrisy in their narrative between this and other recent subjects.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: igloo

Thats why its a wedge issue and timing is everything.


Watch who they pin the leak on and where they end up.

Yes! Never thought of that. Perfect timing.

a reply to: Nyiah

Yes, one of the liberal justices (all my opinion here) knows full well nobody will go back on already written doctrine. So I think they are using their "platform" to do as much damage to the court's reputation as possible. I am not sure what it will accomplish, but they have done a good job torpedoing the other two branches why not!

I wont say it is unprecedented for a leak to happen. I think the initial Roe (or was it Griswald) actually leaked too

First paragraph is 100% my opinion not based on anything I read or any facts as far as I know

Update:

Guys, relax. The highly trustworthy and above reproach integrity of the FBI is going to get to the bottom of who leaked the document.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey

a reply to: wills120


I hope they understand that their actions might rip this country apart. If people think that justices can be pressured by the mob then we don’t have a republic any more and we don’t have rule of law. SCOTUS is the great equalizer of the 3 branches.

This individual I hope goes to jail for the rest of their life. It would be like if the prosecutor or defense of a case could go into the jury room and bully the jury before they vote.
I think that’s a good analogy

I really don't think they care, not at all. The mob is their weapon.

"Chaos is a ladder" - comes to mind. It worked in 2020 and it will work this year because this issue in particular energizes their voters in a very personal way. They don't care for the rippling effects on Democracy, this is a revolution. When Barack Obama ran on a platform to fundementally change America, he and his handlers were 100% serious in their mission.

The timing of this would also appear to be premature...until you realize their fundraising has been steady and still higher than the GOP despite Brandon's constant failures. This leak will expand their fundraising.

Make no mistake, if this leak is true then it will be very, very bad for the GOP's chances of retaking Congress. Expect 24/7 coverage of this and a boost in Biden/Democrats approval ratings within the next week and continuing up to the midterms.

This may be a moral victory for the Right but will Pyrrhic at best if the GOP doesn't retake Congress in November.

a reply to: igloo

And that really is the crux of it. Ultimately, the states should be able to govern themselves without the federal government bowing to the winds of political change and all that. At the same time, we can't forget there are a lot of people who make use of abortion services and even if 99% of them turned out to be preventable/otherwise "not needed" (by whatever definition you choose) there is still a 1% that is impacted

We need to make sure that people aren't going to be forced to die giving birth. If the mother's life is in danger by the sole discretion of the Dr w/ consent from the patient

Or that someone won't have to carry a pregnancy the result of a rape or incest. Totally unacceptable in my eyes and I would never vote for any Republican candidate who pushed something that off the wall radical

I also realize there are other reasons. For instance, some children are born with various disabilities and can live a full and happy life. Others are born and suffer their entire lives. That too would be solely the discretion of the parent, in consultation with a Dr, to make that decision

Its also important for elective abortions, within that reasonable time frame you mentioned, to be accessible. Otherwise we end up with yet another failed form of prohibition that does nothing but punish more private citizens at the hands of the government with other private citizens pulling strings in the background

It should be a matter for the states to decide. It would be best in service of the Constitution to reset such a status quo

Full disclosure: One of my girls had an abortion, and it has significantly tempered my own views on the subject. I would take most of the stuff I write with a grain of salt She knew full well how I felt about it, I sometimes open my big fat mouth without thinking. Still feel like a horses rear end to this day. I know how some people feel and I pretty well agree with you. Just think twice is all I'm saying what you say and who you say it to. Don't want to be tearing anyone down and especially not someone you love and especially unintentionally.

Seems like I missed all the fun!

If anything, this leak was from one of the more liberal Justices (or their underlings, to maintain plausible deniability), It will in no way help the pro-life folks, as the most it can do is generate anger from the pro-abortion crowds (as we have already seen). But that anger can improve turnout from the pro-abortionists, who are generally leftists.

But... consider this... the opinion is supposed to be out in late June or early July (ironically about the time my first grandchild is due). The election is in early November. So why leak now? Why not just wait until the actual release date? That would be closer to the elections and do more damage to the right.

I think it was leaked to try and reverse it... but the Constitutional explanations make that difficult now because it was leaked. On the other hand, the left has this penchant for doing things without legal basis for some time now. If the country actually wanted free abortion on demand, why not just offer up a Constitutional Amendment? That would over-ride this decision and it would be completely legal and permanent (well, as permanent as any legal action can be). Just make it say something like, "Every person residing in the United States shall not be denied the right to an abortion if he/she so desires one, nor shall such a person be subjected to regulation that might impeded their free exercise of this right to an abortion"?

Get that passed and no state can make a law restricting abortion... period. Done.

Want marijuana legal in all 50 states? Congress can do that with a single bill. But no, during Obama's terms he simply ignored the laws. Congress did nothing to legalize it. Then someone else become President and suddenly everyone is afraid of the marijuana laws again.

Want a UBI? Pass a budget that includes a UBI. Done. But no, let's do it with Emergency Authorizations that last only one time.

Want open borders? Simple: repeal the laws against immigration without approval. Done. But no, we want to just ignore those laws, make a few Executive Orders, then cry a lot when the laws are enforced.

Want gun control? Offer up a Constitutional Amendment reversing the Second Amendment. Suddenly gun control is allowed. Done. But no, we prefer to make laws, or even better, make policies for the ATF.

So for now, based on that history of never doing anything legally, I think this leak happened for the sole purpose of intimidating Justices to change their minds... which, of course, is highly illegal in itself. The DNC saw this reversal coming (as did I some time back) and decided that crooked politics was the only way to stop it.

I can't help but wonder if intimidation will work on the likes of Kavanaugh or Thomas... after their very lives were shredded and the fragments burnt in effigy just to get approved for the office. I really don't see that happening... so...

Roe v. Wade is dead! Long live Roe v. Wade! Yippee! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAW!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have a working theory in the back of my brain that a convention of states, constitutional conference is in the pipes for this very reason.

Well, this, guns, immigration and the 1st ammendment as we saw last week.

Also, IMO, to disasterous results.

a reply to: frogs453

Am I missing a law that's in place regarding a man's reproductive system and what he can do with it?

I guess you are. Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-6-61:

(a) A person commits the crime of rape in the first degree if:

(1) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex by forcible compulsion;  or

(2) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated;  or

(3) He or she, being 16 years or older, engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex who is less than 12 years old.

(b) Rape in the first degree is a Class A felony.

Class A felony = life in prison or for a term of 10-99 years.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JinMI

Some Constitutional clarification could be a good thing IMO. Of course, it could also be a very bad thing if the wrong people get involved.

I really don't see that happening, at least not over this. Much easier to riot, burn a few buildings down, kill a few folks, and claim it is a "mostly peaceful" protest. Besides, a lot of people are scared to death of a Constitutional Convention.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

A summer of burning and looting may just provide the perfect backdrop.

Time will tell.

Some random thoughts...

1) I'm not foreseeing a future world where forcing women to give birth is a reasonable stance. I'm not addressing the current moral arguments but rather an inevitable worldview shift--technology like AI, robotics, augmented humans; space exploration, the possibilities of encountering and co-mingling with entirely different life forms; increased understanding of the larger universe, not just "down here" in this one phase and state of being. The future hasn't and doesn't point to a world where mammalian birthing rules must stay mammalian; just the opposite, really.

2) Any Roe versus Wade battles will imo at this point help Dems, hurt Repubs, which is exactly why this was "leaked" in the first place. Politico, no less, really, Charles! Not even the decency to leak to The New York Times...!

3) If one is against abortion because every unborn life is precious, then why make an exception for rape, deformities, incest, etc.? Why, I wonder, does the baby of a rape or incest victim "deserve" to be aborted any more than any other baby? Why in cases such as these commonly approved "exceptions" is the mother's well being more important than the unborn baby's life?

4) The leak is the main thing here, but it's hard to find such things upsetting or unusual any more since the fundamentals and norms of the U.S. Constitution have been upended directly for the last three years running right before our complying eyes. Hands up if you supported that wonderful Patriot Act some years back that most felt was so vital to our SAFETY; hands up if you dis-quietly "accept with outrage" the brand new U.S. Ministry of Truth bundled into something called the Department of Homeland Security... The game here is almost becoming too easy it's so transparent, but yes, the end result will be the minions yapping each other's tails off for another round...

originally posted by: JinMI
Update:

Guys, relax. The highly trustworthy and above reproach integrity of the FBI is going to get to the bottom of who leaked the document.

Screw that send the Marshalls....keep Cia and fbi out

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Naaaa. Too efficient!