Roe v Wade Overturned?

[commonsense]

Time we fixed the headline here.

[Immanuel Can]

Truth in advertising.

[commonsense]

Time we fixed the headline here. It's nonsense.

If the issue is jurisdiction, then there’s no reason that abortion should be singled out for review. Federal agencies that are not under sole control of the State’s’ elected representative include our Interstate Highway System, our Armed Forces and Uniformed Services, our unions, our overseas trading and our gun laws. I wonder when federal jurisdiction issues will affect these areas.

[Sculptor]

Time we fixed the headline here. It's nonsense.

If the issue is jurisdiction, then there’s no reason that abortion should be singled out for review. Federal agencies that are not under sole control of the State’s’ elected representative include our Interstate Highway System, our Armed Forces and Uniformed Services, our unions, our overseas trading and our gun laws. I wonder when federal jurisdiction issues will affect these areas.

The proscription on abortion was a Federal edict. Are you trying to deny that?
By the same token the Feds could just as easily impose a widespread ban. That has not YET happened.

[Sculptor]

Okay. So, 'abortion was overturned', correct?

Abortion is an important instrument in the strategy of handing out free samples of sex by the modern woman, with a view on luring in the commitment of a man.

Suddenly, she becomes "accidentally" pregnant.

It was an "accident", swear to God!

The modern woman will then try to use her pregnancy as leverage to prod and coerce the man into committing. If he does not, she still has the option to "abort" her failed attempt at hauling him in. If she succeeds, however, she is only a mere few years away from running off with half his assets.

But then again, even if he does not commit, but the man has good income, she can also go it alone, make use of yet another feminist law, and try to extract copious amounts of child support.

Abortion is a tool that nicely fits into the modern woman's toolbox of deception, lies, and manipulation. Banning abortion would substantially ruin the effectiveness of a few of the modern woman's deceptive tactics.

Nowadays, men don't come back anyway, after the first sample of free sex, because they know that the manipulative shenanigans are invariably about to commence. They meet each other online. His username is "BigFatJohn". No way to trace him back. Then, he pumps, dumps, and ghosts. She never gets the opportunity to design deceitful tactics, because he has disappeared forever.

Does your mother know what a hardcore misogynist you are?

Maybe he's a sad orphan because his mummy was forced to give him away as not able to get an abortion?

[Sculptor]

Digital nomadism and nomad capitalism is about going where you are personally treated best.
As far as I am concerned, some country's universality of education is not my personal problem.

Psychopathy and sociopathy take many guises.

So, what exactly are you personally doing to ensure "universal education" in Zambia?
Have you already made ample financial contributions to solving the problem?
What about this problem in Venezuela?
I guess that you have sent money already, because they surely need it!
What about this problem in Paraguay?
By the way, give your money to the Columbians and the Nigerians because they clearly need it more than you!

I hope you see how ridiculous your argument is.

You have not responded to my argument in any way.

Well there you are! Then you can fuck off and be a parasite wheresoever you want

There are no greater parasites than the culturally-marxist leftards who incessantly want to spend other people's money.

Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, all morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty, which strictly forbid taking lessons in morality from the godless vermin. One of the main reasons why I switched to Islam is the fact that the Muslims utterly despise the godless vermin, including the leftards We spit, pee, and shit on the godless vermin. There is nothing more despicable than godless leftardism.

Jesus was the first Socialist.
What God are YOU talking about?

that is until you realise when you are older that there will be no one to help you.

By the time this impending economic and financial recession is in full swing, pretty much nobody in the West will have social security any longer or retirement benefits. I also expect snowballing hyperinflation to destroy the value of all fiat currencies. At that point, it will be the useless leftards in the West who will be begging in the streets.

It's a bit like how the West wanted to destroy the economy of the Russian Federation through sanctions. It is clearly the hyper-fragile economy of the West that will be destroyed instead. Vladimir Putin is a genius. I am waiting for his next move in this geopolitical game of 4D chess. In my opinion, Putin will successfully push the West off a cliff and into the abyss. At that point, we will celebrate his victory!

Another brain rotted Fox News Junkie

I suppose you will then plead for status as an immigrant somewhere, or more likely just turn to begging.

No, I would just go to the Mosque and raise the issue with the iman. He will take it from there. There are always solutions, if you are a bit flexible.
Our solution for charity is family and religious congregation. We do not need your godless leftardist shit.

If I ever need to ask for help, it will be from the Islamic community and not from the despicable godless leftardists.

Oh I see you are a Muslim - that explains everything.

[Sculptor]

In the Developing World? You're kidding, right?

What about the millions of women who work in factories here in SE Asia? Are they doing that for free? They make their own money.

Slave wages, in many cases. Your part of the world is renowned for sweatshops and de facto slavery. Again, you must know that.

As a man, your commitment is a precious commodity. It is not easy to get. The easier you hand it out, the more it will end up underappreciated.

Well, that's true, plausibly. Provided that a man isn't debasing himself.

No, it's hostile. It approves the physical beating of women.

Allah emphasizes in the Quran that respect for authority is necessary, and therefore must be enforced.

Who are you that you believe that you can overrule the laws of Allah?

I'm not Muslim. I respect the Lord God, not "Allah."

In my view, beating women does not make a man very impressive, to say the least.

That is the same as saying that a policeman who beats a disrespectful member of the public is not "very impressive" either.

I'm reminded of a young man I knew many years ago, in school. He was a body builder.

He was also the nicest, kindest and most gentle person you could ever meet. He could afford to be. All the other boys were terrified even to think of taking him on...he was huge. But because he was huge, he was never threatened by anyone, never feared their displeasure, and could afford the luxury of being kind to everyone.

He sticks in my mind as an exemplar of a strong young man. But your policeman looks like a bully-coward, to me. He is nowhere near as strong and confident as he ought to be; and because of that, he has to use violence, or he's afraid he'd lose his authority.

I have nothing but contempt for such. Why should I admire a bully who shows his weakness by striking others?

And how much lower is any man who is so fearful that he needs to strike a woman? Does such a man have any courage at all? Let him fight another man of his own size.

Over here, in this part of Asia, if you talk like that even just for 5 minutes, everybody including your own family will know what time it is.

Wow. That's really cowardly. You're saying they'll come after your wife and children? For shame. Are there no real men there?

No, I'm sorry...I can't agree with you about that being a sign of strength. I see it for what it is: a proof of fear, of vulnerability, of insecurity.

Violence can sometimes be warranted...but only against an enemy that is a genuine threat, a genuine equal. Any regime that is afraid of my wife and children is a craven regime.

Careful IC.
Godelian is your only friend on this thread.

[commonsense]

Time we fixed the headline here. It's nonsense.

If the issue is jurisdiction, then there’s no reason that abortion should be singled out for review. Federal agencies that are not under sole control of the State’s’ elected representative include our Interstate Highway System, our Armed Forces and Uniformed Services, our unions, our overseas trading and our gun laws. I wonder when federal jurisdiction issues will affect these areas.

The proscription on abortion was a Federal edict. Are you trying to deny that?
By the same token the Feds could just as easily impose a widespread ban. That has not YET happened.

Of course not. Are you denying that the areas mentioned above are ruled by federal laws?

And if the Feds had issued a widespread ban, would the Court have found it necessary to re-decide Roe?

[Immanuel Can]

Time we fixed the headline here. It's nonsense.

If the issue is jurisdiction, then there’s no reason that abortion should be singled out for review.

Well, for the very obvious reason that the Feds didn't overstep in all areas...or even in so many. So not everything was up for review. And it was just R v. W's turn...they had since 1973, so they can hardly complain.

But now that you mention it, the thing they did immediately afterward is block Biden on the EPA. He's out of his juridiction there, too. But Leftists were so busy screaming about R v. W, they barely noticed that.

[Immanuel Can]

The proscription on abortion was a Federal edict. Are you trying to deny that?

Yep.

There was no Federal edict "proscribing" abortion.

Quite the opposite: there was a repeal of the legislative overreach of the Feds in the case, and abortion has not been Federally "proscribed" in any state at all. That's the whole point of the decision: the Feds have no jurisdiction to say anything on the subject at all. It's now up to the states, individually, as a matter of local jurisdiction.

If there had been a Federal ban, abortion would not still be legal in places like New Yawk and Cali.

[Sculptor]

If the issue is jurisdiction, then there’s no reason that abortion should be singled out for review. Federal agencies that are not under sole control of the State’s’ elected representative include our Interstate Highway System, our Armed Forces and Uniformed Services, our unions, our overseas trading and our gun laws. I wonder when federal jurisdiction issues will affect these areas.

The proscription on abortion was a Federal edict. Are you trying to deny that?
By the same token the Feds could just as easily impose a widespread ban. That has not YET happened.

Of course not. Are you denying that the areas mentioned above are ruled by federal laws?

And if the Feds had issued a widespread ban, would the Court have found it necessary to re-decide Roe?

Not sure where you are going with this.
They have overturned RvW, so the widespread ban is now a possibility.
So the right to abortion has been overturned. The second sentence in the heading is not meaningful there is not "Just" about it.

[Gary Childress]

Time we fixed the headline here. It's nonsense.

I changed the OP to Roe V Wade Overturned if that makes you happier.

[Immanuel Can]

Time we fixed the headline here. It's nonsense.

I changed the OP to Roe V Wade Overturned if that makes you happier.

Better.

Although, it still suggests that R v. W was legit in the first place, which now, of course, we know it wasn't...because it's on that basis that the Supreme Court "overturned," or really, "corrected" that bad decision. There simply wasn't a constitutional basis for R v. W. in the first place.

[Gary Childress]

Although, it still suggests that R v. W was legit in the first place, which now, of course, we know it wasn't...because it's on that basis that the Supreme Court "overturned," or really, "corrected" that bad decision. There simply wasn't a constitutional basis for R v. W. in the first place.

Some still think R v. W was legit. But congrats to you for getting what you wanted.

[Immanuel Can]

Although, it still suggests that R v. W was legit in the first place, which now, of course, we know it wasn't...because it's on that basis that the Supreme Court "overturned," or really, "corrected" that bad decision. There simply wasn't a constitutional basis for R v. W. in the first place.

Some still think R v. W was legit.

Not constitutional. That's the issue.

If it was an attack on abortion, per se, the court would have ruled to ban it. They didn't. They just kicked it back to the proper jurisdictional authority, as the constitution has things.