Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

The US Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Tentacool said:

Right away:

 

No citations given, very selective statistics (including suicides, also with no sample size or citation)

And furthermore a lot of the "loopholes" this website cites are already addressed on a state level - for obvious reasons - AND has NOTHING to do with the Federal Carry.

 

Life, I appreciate you as a content creator, but I think it's safe to say you've been misinformed, furthermore this has been a massive change in goalposts.

There is no such thing as a Federal Carry Law".  Each State makes its own laws regarding where NON-Prohibited person may bring their firearm.

Link to comment
  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For those of you who have been following the recent decisions of the US supreme court, I thought it might be nice to have a topic where people could vent, post questions, or share concerns. I, fo

Based America Glad to see you are finally fixing your laws so they match the constitution. Maybe Biden should have thought twice about being racist to Clarence Thomas in the past.

Tell us more about how the Kulaks deserved it.  And tell us who is currently trying to restrict ownership of guns to minorities today.

Posted Images

9 hours ago, LifeIsStrange said:

The online purchase loophole does not exist. If you buy a gun and have it shipped to your door that is illegal. The way that licensed ffl dealers are REQUIRED to ship firearms is this. You must purchase the firearm (ie pay for it) then the ffl that you purchased from will contact you and ask you to what local ffl you would like the firearm shipped. The remote ffl will then contact the local ffl and confirm that they are also a licensed ffl dealer. The gun will then be shipped to your chosen local ffl. When the gun arrives you will go to the local ffl and complete the background check. In my state the cost for the ffl transfer and background check is around 45-60 dollars.

The boyfriend loophole doesn't exist. It is illegal to purchase a gun for someone else. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

It's wild, how we started talking about the SCOTUS decision regarding a NYC law dealing with who may be approved for a Concealed Handgun License in order to carry it in public, and the conversation crept and drifted into the unrelated topic of who may actually purchase a firearm in the first place.

Here's an interesting statistic:

Crime Prevention Research Center, compared the behavior of CCW holders to police using FBI uniform crime statistics. They concluded that, “concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding.” And added, “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at 1/6 of the rate at which police officers are convicted.” Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate [of firearms violations] is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just 1/7 of the rate for police officers.

I'm thinking that either Texas and Florida have got some very rotten cops who are out doing jacked up stuff on their off days, or CHL holders are some pretty straight laced, fairly level-headed citizens who just want a fighting chance to defend themselves if, God forbid, the terrible need arises.

 

As stated in an earlier post, I usually leave mine in my locked car locked with a triggerguard. The biggest fear is that some nutjob will break into one of my high-profile cars (vette & camaro red convertibles) and steal the weapon. I don't usually park in sketchy places for obvious reasons.

Edited by leepee43 (see edit history)
Link to comment

you can also 3D print the parts for an unregistered gun and assemble it yourself. which while illegal in its own right, is extremely difficult to enforce. i don't suggest you should 3D print the pieces for your own gun, i merely acknowledge that it is a possible tactic for criminals to get their own guns illegally without needing a friend with a clean name to buy on their behalf, by forging the friend's name to get the schematics for the parts onto their 3D printer.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, PPP said:

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about abortion rights? Or is it for discussing laws in general?

No idea.

Here's my two cents on that particular ruling: all the SCOTUS ruling on that case did was kick the debate back to the state level where it belongs.  Now the states that want it can have it with even less restrictions than before, and the ones that don't can ban it or restrict it further.

Note, also, that the original ruling in Roe v Wade was illegal, per the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people (according to a piece she wrote while head of the ACLU).  SCOTUS made up a law that didn't actually exist, that's one problem.  The other problem was that the plaintiff in the case admitted after the fact that she made the whole thing up, and in literally any other court case, perjury would be grounds to throw the ruling out and declare it a mistrial.

Now, for the record, I'm not even going to get into my own views on the matter, I'm just pointing out that there's a legal way to pass laws, and that requires one of two procedures to be followed.  If the pro-choice crowd wants an abortion law on the books at the federal level, they can have it, they just have to pass it legally through Congress or via a constitutional convention.  SCOTUS, on the other hand, finally did what it was supposed to do.  Their job isn't to pass laws, it's not to "read the room", it's not even to make judgements based on the "greater good", it's to ask one simple question: "is this constitutional or not?"  The actions of the prior court were illegal, so they struck the old ruling down, and rightfully so.

And to those who might say "to hell with procedure"...be very careful what you wish for, because if you do that and establish a precedent, you'd better believe it'll be used against you later, the Constitution puts limits on the power of government to protect you, not to hinder you.  Never assume that the other side won't gain power one day.

Edited by D0nt45k (see edit history)
Link to comment
10 hours ago, PPP said:

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about abortion rights? Or is it for discussing laws in general?

Well, I was the one who started this thread, and though the overturning of Roe v. Wade was part of it, it was also in response to the other recent decisions of the US supreme court and their new way of interpreting the constitution through a "textural-historical" perspective.

2 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

Here's my two cents on that particular ruling: all the SCOTUS ruling on that case did was kick the debate back to the state level where it belongs.

I disagree on both parts, on the notion that this decision belongs at the state level and that this was all this decision did.

First, I don't think what rights a person has should vary from state to state.  I don't think a state should be able to dictate the kind of medical care a person can get, and outlaw care that is potentially life saving.  In my view the role of having a federal government is to protect an individuals rights so states can not do such things.

Second, the court issued multiple opinions on this topic.  Even though Roberts' opinion views this decision as limited, the concurring opinions of the other conservative justices on the court made it it clear that they did not view things through the limited perspective that Roberts did, suggesting that the same legal rationale the court used in this case be applied to overturn the court's decisions legalizing same sex marriage or the right for consenting adults to engage in a sexual relationship.

If these decisions are also overturned, a state could deny a married couple any number of rights, including survivorship, benefits, parental, and inheritance rights.  A state could even criminalize premarital sexual relationships, or that the only form of intercourse that is legal is missionary position between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation. 

2 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

Note, also, that the original ruling in Roe v Wade was illegal, per the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people (according to a piece she wrote while head of the ACLU).  SCOTUS made up a law that didn't actually exist, that's one problem.  The other problem was that the plaintiff in the case admitted after the fact that she made the whole thing up, and in literally any other court case, perjury would be grounds to throw the ruling out and declare it a mistrial.

By the very definition of what is legal in the United Sates, the ruling of the Supreme Court can not be illegal.  It is the highest court and decides what is legal or not.  If it decides something, that is now the law of the land.

You are also misrepresenting the position of former Justice Ginsburg.  She stated many times that she agreed with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, but she disagreed on the constitutional basis for the ruling.  In Roe v. Wade the court found an individual's constitutional right to privacy protected the decision between her and her doctor to get an abortion.  Ginsburg believed in the constitutional right to an abortion, but felt the legal justification of this right was in the equal protection amendments, not an issue of privacy rights.  She did not think that this issue should be left to the states. Source

Finally, you claimed that the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade lied and that she made the whole thing up.  Though this narrative has been spreading via right wing social media, it isn't true.  Though the plaintiff, when she initially sought an abortion, falsely claimed that she was raped believing that this might make it easier for her to get an abortion.  She never claimed in court, or testified before the supreme court that she was raped.  The question of rape in this case wasn't something that the court considered, and was not in any way a basis for their decision.
Source

2 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

SCOTUS, on the other hand, finally did what it was supposed to do.  Their job isn't to pass laws, it's not to "read the room", it's not even to make judgements based on the "greater good", it's to ask one simple question: "is this constitutional or not?"

I agree with you here.  But the constitution establishes a right to bodily autonomy in the 4th and 14th amendments

 

.  These amendments provide the legal basis for why the state can't force you to give up your kidney to save a dying person.  In fact, this right to bodily autonomy even extends to after death, which is why you can choose to be an organ donor or not.  Throughout the entire history of the US the court has only every held up this right to bodily autonomy.

You have the right to be secure in your person and in your possessions.  This concept has only ever been held up by the court as an enshrined constitutional right that grows from the 4th and 14th amendments.

For the first time the court has decided that a person can be denied the right to bodily autonomy because of a state law.  A woman can be compelled to use her uterus in a certain way, as dictated by the law, against her will.  This should be no different than a person being forced to give up a kidney against their will. 

2 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

The other problem was that the plaintiff in the case admitted after the fact that she made the whole thing up, and in literally any other court case, perjury would be grounds to throw the ruling out and declare it a mistrial.

Even though I already pointed out that this isn't even true, just a viral false claim circulating on social media, since you brought up the topic of perjury and appropriate remedies for perjury, let me pose this question to you:

At least three of the conservative justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade testified, under oath, at their confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was established constitutional law.  That the matter had been settled by previous courts and that the precedent of Roe v. Wade is a settled matter.

Now, upon reading their opinions on the matter, it is clear that they believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and not settled precedent.  This would suggest that these justices lied during their confirmation hearings, and such they were testifying under oath in front of congress that would seem to clearly fit the definition of perjury.   So, when the justices are guilty of perjury, what should be done?

Link to comment
On 7/14/2022 at 9:52 PM, TVGuy said:

Well, I was the one who started this thread, and though the overturning of Roe v. Wade was part of it, it was also in response to the other recent decisions of the US supreme court and their new way of interpreting the constitution through a "textural-historical" perspective.

I disagree on both parts, on the notion that this decision belongs at the state level and that this was all this decision did.

First, I don't think what rights a person has should vary from state to state.  I don't think a state should be able to dictate the kind of medical care a person can get, and outlaw care that is potentially life saving.  In my view the role of having a federal government is to protect an individuals rights so states can not do such things.

Second, the court issued multiple opinions on this topic.  Even though Roberts' opinion views this decision as limited, the concurring opinions of the other conservative justices on the court made it it clear that they did not view things through the limited perspective that Roberts did, suggesting that the same legal rationale the court used in this case be applied to overturn the court's decisions legalizing same sex marriage or the right for consenting adults to engage in a sexual relationship.

If these decisions are also overturned, a state could deny a married couple any number of rights, including survivorship, benefits, parental, and inheritance rights.  A state could even criminalize premarital sexual relationships, or that the only form of intercourse that is legal is missionary position between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation. 

By the very definition of what is legal in the United Sates, the ruling of the Supreme Court can not be illegal.  It is the highest court and decides what is legal or not.  If it decides something, that is now the law of the land.

You are also misrepresenting the position of former Justice Ginsburg.  She stated many times that she agreed with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, but she disagreed on the constitutional basis for the ruling.  In Roe v. Wade the court found an individual's constitutional right to privacy protected the decision between her and her doctor to get an abortion.  Ginsburg believed in the constitutional right to an abortion, but felt the legal justification of this right was in the equal protection amendments, not an issue of privacy rights.  She did not think that this issue should be left to the states. Source

Finally, you claimed that the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade lied and that she made the whole thing up.  Though this narrative has been spreading via right wing social media, it isn't true.  Though the plaintiff, when she initially sought an abortion, falsely claimed that she was raped believing that this might make it easier for her to get an abortion.  She never claimed in court, or testified before the supreme court that she was raped.  The question of rape in this case wasn't something that the court considered, and was not in any way a basis for their decision.
Source

I agree with you here.  But the constitution establishes a right to bodily autonomy in the 4th and 14th amendments

 

.  These amendments provide the legal basis for why the state can't force you to give up your kidney to save a dying person.  In fact, this right to bodily autonomy even extends to after death, which is why you can choose to be an organ donor or not.  Throughout the entire history of the US the court has only every held up this right to bodily autonomy.

You have the right to be secure in your person and in your possessions.  This concept has only ever been held up by the court as an enshrined constitutional right that grows from the 4th and 14th amendments.

For the first time the court has decided that a person can be denied the right to bodily autonomy because of a state law.  A woman can be compelled to use her uterus in a certain way, as dictated by the law, against her will.  This should be no different than a person being forced to give up a kidney against their will. 

Even though I already pointed out that this isn't even true, just a viral false claim circulating on social media, since you brought up the topic of perjury and appropriate remedies for perjury, let me pose this question to you:

At least three of the conservative justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade testified, under oath, at their confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was established constitutional law.  That the matter had been settled by previous courts and that the precedent of Roe v. Wade is a settled matter.

Now, upon reading their opinions on the matter, it is clear that they believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and not settled precedent.  This would suggest that these justices lied during their confirmation hearings, and such they were testifying under oath in front of congress that would seem to clearly fit the definition of perjury.   So, when the justices are guilty of perjury, what should be done?

Those justices weren't under oath when they were asked about Roe v Wade.  They had no obligation to tell the truth.

I know you and so many other people here don't want to hear it, but the US is a federal republic, and the Constitution has this thing called the 10th Amendment, where any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole domain of the states and the people, until otherwise amended.  There is a process to amend the constitution, you're welcome to use it.  The laws aren't wrong, the people who don't understand them are wrong.

You want to put forward an amendment to mandate abortion access across the country?  Fine, there's a process to do that.   You don't get to skip it just because you feel like it (and if you do it anyway, mark my words, your opposition will do the same thing to you - if you don't follow the rules, the other side won't either).

Oh and before you bring up the court that passed it in the first place?  Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice at that time, was openly and proudly an activist, he abused his unelected position on the bench to pass edicts and admitted as much.  The 14th Amendment does not say anything about bodily autonomy, that's a lie, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people pointed this out.  She agreed with the principle of the ruling, but pointed out, correctly, that the ruling was illegal, and that by breaking the law in the first place, the pro-choice crowd gave ammunition to their opposition that ensured the debate will never end.  Shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.

Edited by D0nt45k (see edit history)
Link to comment
9 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

Those justices weren't under oath when they were asked about Roe v Wade.  They had no obligation to tell the truth.

I know you and so many other people here don't want to hear it, but the US is a federal republic, and the Constitution has this thing called the 10th Amendment, where any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole domain of the states and the people, until otherwise amended.  There is a process to amend the constitution, you're welcome to use it.  The laws aren't wrong, the people who don't understand them are wrong.

You want to put forward an amendment to mandate abortion access across the country?  Fine, there's a process to do that.   You don't get to skip it just because you feel like it (and if you do it anyway, mark my words, your opposition will do the same thing to you - if you don't follow the rules, the other side won't either).

Oh and before you bring up the court that passed it in the first place?  Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice at that time, was openly and proudly an activist, he abused his unelected position on the bench to pass edicts and admitted as much.  The 14th Amendment does not say anything about bodily autonomy, that's a lie, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people pointed this out.  She agreed with the principle of the ruling, but pointed out, correctly, that the ruling was illegal, and that by breaking the law in the first place, the pro-choice crowd gave ammunition to their opposition that ensured the debate will never end.  Shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.

The fact that they lied in their confirmation hearings should lead to consequences for them. Yes they did have an obligation to tell the truth, the notion that someone vying for a seat in the highest court in the land has "no obligation to tell the truth" is sheer unadulterated lunacy.

No it is not a lie at all, but your post certainly is:https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-rights/

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
10 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

Those justices weren't under oath when they were asked about Roe v Wade.  They had no obligation to tell the truth.

They were asked at their confirmation hearings after they were sworn in and absolutely under oath.  Anyone can go watch recordings of these hearings right now and see them being sworn in.  And even if they weren't, you are seriously implying it was okay for them to flat out lie during their confirmation hearings to get the job, as long as they weren't technically under oath?

10 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

I know you and so many other people here don't want to hear it, but the US is a federal republic, and the Constitution has this thing called the 10th Amendment, where any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole domain of the states and the people, until otherwise amended.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to highlight the word federal here.  But as you pointed out, there is a process for amending the constitution.  If we look at the foInurth amendment of the constitution it states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Supreme Court, who's job it is to interpret the constitution, even by your own admission, has found that violating a person's right to bodily autonomy is tantamount to an illegal search or seizure of that person.  It violates the right of the people to be secure in their persons.

Then the fourteenth amendment states under section one:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is an amendment, so it falls under the "Until otherwise amended" standard you cited.  This limits states abilities to make laws that affect a persons fundamental rights and freedoms.  A person's body has been found by the courts to legally be considered their property.  In the case of a state law outlawing abortion, the state is passing a law depriving a woman of the ability to make choices about her own uterus.  A pregnancy can also put a woman's life at risk.  A state law compelling such a thing would seem to violate the standard that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property."

There is another argument regarding equal protection- That in specifically targeting women, and enacting laws that only regulate what happens between a woman and her doctor, but not between a man and his doctor, violates the equal protection clause.

In establishing a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, we also look to the 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again, we have a statement indicating that a person can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property.  But, we also have a clause that private property can not be taken for public use, without just compensation, which includes a person's body and body parts.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have found that these three amendments together effectively create a right to bodily autonomy.  One of the effect of the constitutional amendments, according to the court who's job it is to interpret the constitution, is to create a penumbra of rights.  Rights that are maybe not specifically spelled out in the text, but nevertheless emerge from the text and are necessary to maintain a consistent interpretation of the constitution.  Otherwise, you risk having conflicting interpretations and rulings.

The right to bodily autonomy isn't just about abortion.  It is about being free to do what you want with your own body.  Part of that means that a woman can't be compelled to sacrifice her uterus for the life of another, but it also means you can't be compelled to sacrifice your kidney for someone else's life.

In Griswold v. Connecticut it was found, in part, that this right allowed married couples the right to contraception.

In Eisenstadt v. Baird they expanded this right to unmarried people, giving everyone the right to access contraception.

In Lawrence v. Texas the 14th amendment's right to bodily autonomy, the courts found, gave people the right to engage in consensual sexual relations.

In Stanly v. Georgia the Supreme Court found this right to bodily autonomy meant an adult had the right to view pornography, if they so choose.

Finally, in multiple decisions, the court has upheld an individual right to make choices about their own health care, even the right to reject lifesaving treatment.

If you are going to argue that the right to bodily autonomy is not already enshrined in the constitution and its amendments, then you are also arguing that there is no constitutional right to contraception, no constitutional right to engage in a consenting sexual relationship,  no right to view pornography, and no right to make choices about your own health care, or even be able to deny health care.

Link to comment
On 7/16/2022 at 12:36 AM, D0nt45k said:

Those justices weren't under oath when they were asked about Roe v Wade.  They had no obligation to tell the truth.

I know you and so many other people here don't want to hear it, but the US is a federal republic, and the Constitution has this thing called the 10th Amendment, where any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole domain of the states and the people, until otherwise amended.  There is a process to amend the constitution, you're welcome to use it.  The laws aren't wrong, the people who don't understand them are wrong.

You want to put forward an amendment to mandate abortion access across the country?  Fine, there's a process to do that.   You don't get to skip it just because you feel like it (and if you do it anyway, mark my words, your opposition will do the same thing to you - if you don't follow the rules, the other side won't either).

Oh and before you bring up the court that passed it in the first place?  Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice at that time, was openly and proudly an activist, he abused his unelected position on the bench to pass edicts and admitted as much.  The 14th Amendment does not say anything about bodily autonomy, that's a lie, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people pointed this out.  She agreed with the principle of the ruling, but pointed out, correctly, that the ruling was illegal, and that by breaking the law in the first place, the pro-choice crowd gave ammunition to their opposition that ensured the debate will never end.  Shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.

It sounds to me like it would all be settled by obtaining a 2 house majority vote on a bill that codified abortion into The U.S. Code. I'm sure the current President would sign it into law immediately.  Abortion is codified law in the U.K. and there doesn't seem to be any fiery debate about it.  The winners won and the losers admitted defeat on the issue.  There is zero looking for "penumbra emanations" of "rights" that judges think they can see shining around the edges of The Constitution.

 

And as far as States Rights go, we love our 2A down here in Texas (as opposed to the NY carry law SCOTUS struck down), but seem to drive our ladies over to Shreveport to The Hope Clinic to get abortions by the busload, according to the Shreveport network news.

It's like my dad said decades ago, "you cannot legislate morality".

Edited by leepee43 (see edit history)
Link to comment
14 hours ago, leepee43 said:

It sounds to me like it would all be settled by obtaining a 2 house majority vote on a bill that codified abortion into The U.S. Code

That would solve the abortion issue, yes.  But right now democrats don't have the votes in the senate to do that, so it isn't going to happen.

15 hours ago, leepee43 said:

There is zero looking for "penumbra emanations" of "rights" that judges think they can see shining around the edges of The Constitution.

In any free society, where freedoms are guaranteed by by constitution or other decree, you are always going to have some form of rights that emergent from the text, though not specifically codified.  It would be irittmpossible to codify every single possible freedom.  The freedom to choose what to wear, to step outside, to look up at the sky, to take a deep breath, to hum a song to yourself, and any number of other things aren't specifically codified as protected rights. 

However, by looking at what is codified in the legal texts courts are able to determine that certain things only make sense, or allow for a consistent interpretation of the law, if you assume other rights also exist.  For example, in the US constitution it isn't specifically written that any person has any right to own property.  Yet, a good deal is written about how and when a person's property can be taken or violated.  Because of this, these other property protections only make sense assuming that a right to own property exists.

Link to comment
On 6/26/2022 at 3:28 PM, trekkie said:

Vote like people fought tooth and nail to get you the right... and like people are fighting tooth and nail to take it away from you. 

And everyone fighting will be the key thing to tear us apart. Thats exactly what both parties WANT! I'm gonna try to be as nice as possible, but you need to talk to pro lifers to find out WHY they're like this! Maybe get some sort of compromise, and find people to run for office to enact those compromises. Unless y'all throw eachother bones, it's not gonna get any better. The supreme court simply said its up to the governors. So you gotta vote! And convince pro lifers you're not what they think. Otherwise this will only get worse. If we fight, no one will win. Theres the loser, and the others who lost more. Pro lifers always say "those dumb democrats never do research!" Make em eat those words and talk to them! If they cant back up their words, THEY cant do research!!!

Link to comment
13 hours ago, EmbarrassingSe said:

And everyone fighting will be the key thing to tear us apart. Thats exactly what both parties WANT! I'm gonna try to be as nice as possible, but you need to talk to pro lifers to find out WHY they're like this! Maybe get some sort of compromise, and find people to run for office to enact those compromises. Unless y'all throw eachother bones, it's not gonna get any better. The supreme court simply said its up to the governors. So you gotta vote! And convince pro lifers you're not what they think. Otherwise this will only get worse. If we fight, no one will win. Theres the loser, and the others who lost more. Pro lifers always say "those dumb democrats never do research!" Make em eat those words and talk to them! If they cant back up their words, THEY cant do research!!!

But we already know why though, it's usually one of two reasons-either A they want to control women's bodies and impose their creepy christo-fascist beliefs on everyone else or B-they oppose it because the GOP tells them to and they do it without any kind of critical thinking.

I find it bitterly ironic that those claiming to be pro-life are the ones always defending cops whenever they kill someone unarmed trying to jump through hoops to explain why that shooting was justified. So I personally view the term "pro-life" as a misnomer, from my experience those people are more like pro-death as once a person is born they don't give a damn what happens to them.

No both parties do not want this at all, that's blatantly untrue.  I only see one party trying to drag women back to the dark ages before they were allowed to vote and it's not the dems. Throwing those charlatans bones is how we got here in the first place, so I have zero desire to extend an olive branch to people who are actively preaching dangerous nonsense(like calling ALL LGBTQ people "groomers") that can and has literally gotten people killed.  It's like the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog where one is always going to sting the other because it's in their nature, and I for one really don't feel like getting stung.


I fail to see how things can get possibly get any worse by not befriending these fools. These cultists are not going to be convinced to see reason as even when confronted with actual research they just double-down and keep on preaching the same old myths that have been disproven time and time again, so debating then is a complete waste of time. Trying to compromise with them solves nothing as they'll only keep asking for more and more demands.  At least that's my personal experience with them, it's easy to cling to the idealized notion of a pro-lifer who sees the error of their ways and reforms, that makes for a nice movie or episode of a TV show but in reality that rarely ever happens.

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
On 7/20/2022 at 5:24 PM, LifeIsStrange said:

But we already know why though, it's usually one of two reasons-either A they want to control women's bodies and impose their creepy christo-fascist beliefs on everyone else or B-they oppose it because the GOP tells them to and they do it without any kind of critical thinking.

Right off the bat, you assume you know exactly everything without doing any research at all. You dont want to listen to any alternative motives, so why should anyone listen to you? It's because of people like you, Republicans took WAY overboard extreme action. 

 

Whether I agree with you on pro choice or not, it doesn't matter. Why read anything else if you're not even willing to listen to people who dont?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, EmbarrassingSe said:

Right off the bat, you assume you know exactly everything without doing any research at all. You dont want to listen to any alternative motives, so why should anyone listen to you? It's because of people like you, Republicans took WAY overboard extreme action. 

 

Whether I agree with you on pro choice or not, it doesn't matter. Why read anything else if you're not even willing to listen to people who dont?

No it's because they want to control women period end of story, the idea that the rethugs only did this because of people calling them out is complete and utter bullcrap. They would've done the EXACT same thing even if the left said nothing, believing otherwise is utterly delusional.

Why should I waste my time debating with people that unironically believe deranged nonsense?(I.E. claiming that ALL LGBTQ folks are "groomers" and that teachers are trying to promote "critical race theory" just for pointing out that slavery existed)It's completely pointless.

Never once claimed I "knew everything" so nice try with the strawman.

Not all "alternative" opinions are worth anything, especially those that have zero basis in reality and are disproven by science(like denying that climate change exists).

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
On 7/7/2022 at 8:59 PM, LifeIsStrange said:

No it's safe to say it's you who has been misinformed here if you seriously don't see ANY potential downsides at all to this SCOTUS decision.

Don't see how any goalposts have been changed really.

Look I don't want to be right about this SCOTUS decision having negative side effects, but after how bad this year has been for mass-shootings I can't help but be cynical about it.

Anyway I think i've discussed this decision enough at this point so i'm just going to leave it here as I don't see either one of us budging on this issue anytime soon. 

Not gonna read it if you dont agree to listen to the other side. If the first sentence isnt "Ill listen to people who disagree with me" then I wont listen to you. Im just wasting my breath talking if youre not even gonna read it, so why should I read yours? 

Edited by EmbarrassingSe
I wanted to explain why I didnt provide much. (see edit history)
Link to comment
9 hours ago, EmbarrassingSe said:

Not gonna read it if you dont agree to listen to the other side. If the first sentence isnt "Ill listen to people who disagree with me" then I wont listen to you. Im just wasting my breath talking if youre not even gonna read it, so why should I read yours? 

Why should I listen to extremists that are OK with 10-year olds being forced to get an abortion in another state after being raped and women being forced to go through carrying dead fetuses and trying to ban IVF and Plan B?  Sometimes the "other side" are a bunch of crazy wackjobs that aren't worth listening to, i'm done wasting my breath on you.

It's awfully immature of you to ignore any posts that don't just mindlessly agree with everything you say.

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, LifeIsStrange said:

Why should I listen to extremists that are OK with 10-year olds being forced to get an abortion in another state after being raped and women being forced to go through carrying dead fetuses and trying to ban IVF and Plan B?  Sometimes the "other side" are a bunch of crazy wackjobs that aren't worth listening to, i'm done wasting my breath on you.

It's awfully immature of you to ignore any posts that don't just mindlessly agree with everything you say.

There really is no point in continuing. This is just making you mad so this will be the last time I reply. I hate making people mad. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, EmbarrassingSe said:

Not gonna read it if you dont agree to listen to the other side. If the first sentence isnt "Ill listen to people who disagree with me" then I wont listen to you. Im just wasting my breath talking if youre not even gonna read it, so why should I read yours? 

I'll listen to people who might disagree with me. :p

Are you pro-life? In either case, can you provide more context to the arguments against abortion? The main one I hear is that the fetus experiences pain, but the pain receptors don't develop until 26 weeks in and the abortion limit is 24 weeks at most. Other arguments like "abortion causes depression" and "abortion causes cancer" simply aren't true. Let's forget about SCOTUS for now, just focus on whether abortion is good or bad.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

I'll listen to people who might disagree with me. 😛

Are you pro-life? In either case, can you provide more context to the arguments against abortion? The main one I hear is that the fetus experiences pain, but the pain receptors don't develop until 26 weeks in and the abortion limit is 24 weeks at most. Other arguments like "abortion causes depression" and "abortion causes cancer" simply aren't true. Let's forget about SCOTUS for now, just focus on whether abortion is good or bad.

I am actually "pro-life".  I simply truly believe that life begins at the moment of conception.  I also believe that all human life is endowed with an eternal soul.  I also believe that each of us will be held accountable for our actions on this earth by a higher power who will judge us.  With that being said, abortion has existed since the dawn of humankind and no law is going to stop it.  Like my Dad said decades ago, "ya can't legislate morals".  It's sad to think that some people have had to make those hard choices in their lives, but I'm a realist and realize that it's always been practiced and always will be practiced.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight,  as I don't have any children.  But I would hope that I would have concentrated on raising my sons to respect women and take responsibility for their actions.  I'd also hope that I would have raised my daughters to make responsible choices in their lives and the lives of their future children.  What I would NOT have done is to be out there trying to save this fallen world as it is a losing battle.  Abortion is a fact, and "ya just can't legislate morals into existence".

 

Just my two cents.  No hate here either way.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

I'll listen to people who might disagree with me. 😛

Are you pro-life? In either case, can you provide more context to the arguments against abortion? The main one I hear is that the fetus experiences pain, but the pain receptors don't develop until 26 weeks in and the abortion limit is 24 weeks at most. Other arguments like "abortion causes depression" and "abortion causes cancer" simply aren't true. Let's forget about SCOTUS for now, just focus on whether abortion is good or bad.

Thats all Im asking. That is the only way were gonna stop the corruption in both parties. I'm not totally pro life, nor totally pro choice. Im not democrat and CERTAINLY not republican. (After the last trick they pulled, which I wont say). I'm not trying to put my side out there on a site where Im trying to make friends.

 

Im only trying to prevent any more chaos! I sorta kinda think what the supreme court did was WRONG, as the best way to stop something you dont like, whether it's abortion, or forced pregnancy, is to talk to people. Get campaigns going, let people debate, have freedom of speech. Then once a super majority have decided, (which is 67%) THEN rule in their favor. They clearly didnt have a super majority against abortion or womens rights.

 

However, if people DONT listen to others who disagree, maybe extreme action is the only way to get anything done. I cant stand Republicans, but how the other guy was acting, maybe they're right. Maybe Democrats DONT listen to anything else except people who agree with them. 

 

However... if you REALLY want my opinion on abortion, PM me. It's not gonna go over well in public. Because, I'm independent, I have STRONG left leaning and STRONG right leaning views. Some think Im far right, some think Im far left, heck, Im probably far BOTH!

Edited by EmbarrassingSe (see edit history)
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, EmbarrassingSe said:

Thats all Im asking. That is the only way were gonna stop the corruption in both parties. I'm not totally pro life, nor totally pro choice. Im not democrat and CERTAINLY not republican. (After the last trick they pulled, which I wont say). I'm not trying to put my side out there on a site where Im trying to make friends.

 

Im only trying to prevent any more chaos! I sorta kinda think what the supreme court did was WRONG, as the best way to stop something you dont like, whether it's abortion, or forced pregnancy, is to talk to people. Get campaigns going, let people debate, have freedom of speech. Then once a super majority have decided, (which is 67%) THEN rule in their favor. They clearly didnt have a super majority against abortion or womens rights.

 

However, if people DONT listen to others who disagree, maybe extreme action is the only way to get anything done. I cant stand Republicans, but how the other guy was acting, maybe they're right. Maybe Democrats DONT listen to anything else except people who agree with them. 

 

However... if you REALLY want my opinion on abortion, PM me. It's not gonna go over well in public. Because, I'm independent, I have STRONG left leaning and STRONG right leaning views. Some think Im far right, some think Im far left, heck, Im probably far BOTH!

I see no reason why dems should listen to anyone that does not agree with them when many on the opposing side unironically believe in garbage conspiracy theories(e.g. all LGBTQ folks being "Groomers").

 

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...