Roe v Wade Overturned?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14575
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Roe v Wade Overturned?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:07 pm But Roe applies to kind of everything, or rather tha underlying rationale of it did, and that's what you guys just lost. So now you have to actively enumerate all the rights you want, including contraception.
Seems like that 9th amendment is useless afterall..
commonsense
Posts: 5259
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Roe v Wade Overturned?

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:19 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:07 pm But Roe applies to kind of everything, or rather tha underlying rationale of it did, and that's what you guys just lost. So now you have to actively enumerate all the rights you want, including contraception.
Seems like that 9th amendment is useless afterall..
Is murderous anti-fungal cream next?
popeye1945
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Roe v Wade Overturned?

Post by popeye1945 »

A new topic perhaps, religious insanity and religious retards, and what to do about them?
promethean75
Posts: 5128
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Roe v Wade Overturned?

Post by promethean75 »

Walker
Posts: 14512
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Roe v Wade Overturned?

Post by Walker »

Before I click, what does the video show, and what's it about?

I'm careful about clicking your links. They can be disturbing.
Walker
Posts: 14512
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Roe v Wade Overturned?

Post by Walker »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:07 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:57 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:59 pm 194 Republicans voted against the Access to Contraceptives Bill.

It's almost as if it's not about abortions.
Are you suggesting that Roe doesn’t apply to abortion? Are you saying that it’s really about contraception? Are you saying that 194 Congressional Republicans voted against the measure because it was too permissive or because it was too restrictive? Are you making a point about partisanship or about bipartisanship?
Roe v Wade was about unenumerated rights in the US Constitution. All the stuff that hadn't been written down specifically, but were generally expected anyway. The right a private sphere of action in which you don't need to worry about government interference was one of them, and that was interpreted maximally in RvW for the purposes of decisions made by you and your doctor.

The recent ruling discards all of that private scope for action, and sticks the state's beak right up in your business. But it was sold to you as an anti-abortion thing and Americans are so deep in their culture war bullshit that they don't seem to realise how universally they just got fucked.

If you have no private zone of choice when in consultation with the doctor who just removed his hand from your insides, what on Earth would make you think you have one with a pharmacist, an insurer or much of anybody else? If the right you are intereseted in enforcing isn't specifically written down in the constitution, it has already been deprecated. All that remains now is to see how blatantly partisan the imposition of this new order is going to get. And then of course to see how severe the reaction will be.

But Roe applies to kind of everything, or rather tha underlying rationale of it did, and that's what you guys just lost. So now you have to actively enumerate all the rights you want, including contraception.
So theoretical and hypothetical.

But don't worry. The constitution is violated all the time. Roe is but one example. The constitution gets violated all the time by the Left. The Left takes an interest in the constitution when they can corrupt it, otherwise they don't care much for it.

Gun control is but another violation of the constitution.

The porous and dangerous southern border is but another. In fact, it's one of the few enumerated duties of the government: to protect from enemies foreign and domestic, and as far as we know, every person who commits a criminal act to enter the country is an enemy.

Solution? Change the regulations. That way it's not a crime. No criminal arraignment, no criminal charge, no crime.
That's what red tape says. Release them into the US with a court date, and no way to make sure they show up.

That's a nice solution/corruption of the intent of border control, and the constitution. (And that's sarcasm via corrupting the word "nice", in case you didn't get it.)

This is how the Brandon administration can say that there is no open border policy, and leave it at that, unmolested by the press.
commonsense
Posts: 5259
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Roe v Wade Overturned?

Post by commonsense »

Walker wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:02 am
The porous and dangerous southern border is but another. In fact, it's one of the few enumerated duties of the government: to protect from enemies foreign and domestic, and as far as we know, every person who commits a criminal act to enter the country is an enemy.
As long as sarcasm is allowed, you’re forgetting that expats who shoplift are enemies, too. Enemies!
Post Reply