It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[webbles]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Rep Susan Collins was lied to by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in a private conversation concerning nominations.

They did not lie. We have their testimony and she asked them about it in public. They said the same thing publicly that they said to her privately (per her statement).  They did say that precedents shouldn't be overturned for no reason. But they never promised to not overturn precedents.

I'm glad the other justices also never promised to overturn precedents. Because we have some that needed to be overturned and others that need to be overturned.

[The Nehor]

So we aren’t even pretending it is about the babies anymore? Just more Great Replacement Nazi eugenics garbage? How very surprising. This is my surprised face. It just looks similar to my “resigned to everything being stupid” face. Total coincidence. 

Edit: She would be an example of a punchable Nazi in case you were wondering.

Edited June 26, 2022 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Utah#:~:text=Abortion in Utah is currently,abortion a second-degree felony.

Free birth control correlates to teenage girls having a fewer pregnancies and fewer abortions, according to a 2014 New England Journal of Medicine study.  At the same time, a 2011 study by Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health also found that states with more abortion restrictions have higher rates of maternal death, higher rates of uninsured pregnant women, higher rates of infant and child deaths, higher rates of teen drug and alcohol abuse, and lower rates of cancer screening.^[16]

According to a 2017 report from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health, states that tried to pass additional constraints on a women's ability to access legal abortions had fewer policies supporting women's health, maternal health and children's health.  These states also tended to resist expanding Medicaid, family leave, medical leave, and sex education in public schools.^[17] According to Megan Donovan, a senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute, states have legislation seeking to protect a woman's right to access abortion services have the lowest rates of infant mortality in the United States.^[17]

Poor women in the United States had problems paying for menstrual pads and tampons in 2018 and 2019. Almost two-thirds of American women could not pay for them. These were not available through the federal Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC).^[18] Lack of menstrual supplies has an economic impact on poor women.  A study in St. Louis found that 36% had to miss days of work because they lacked adequate menstrual hygiene supplies during their period.  This was on top of the fact that many had other menstrual issues including bleeding, cramps and other menstrual induced health issues.^[18] This state was one of a majority that taxed essential hygiene products like tampons and menstrual pads as of November 2018.^{[19][20][21][22]}

[The Nehor]

PSA: The general advice is for anyone capable of becoming pregnant to delete any apps that track your period. Especially in states that have stricter abortion bans. Even if you would never get an elective abortion that kind of tracking could reveal a spontaneous miscarriage or something of that nature and there is no guarantee those records will stay private. I doubt anyone wants to be humiliated and forced to answer questions and justify that it was a miscarriage. There is no telling how invasive and creepy this could get in some states.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Are you under the impression that the oil industry is under the control of the government?

I'm not allowed to answer that question. No politics. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm not allowed to answer that question. No politics. 

But you were allowed to bring it up as an irrelevant tangent?

I’m kidding, but seriously look at profits and how many wells oil companies are sitting on. This isn’t politics. It is economics. They could increase production in a major way but they don’t. Part of that is economically justifiable. They are making huge profits and increasing production might increase profits in the short term but if the global market stabilizes there could be a bust where the increased production causes prices to plummet.

It is just semi-free markets in a field dominated by oligopolies and ruled by economic game theory.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Not to me.  Words become meaningless when they are severed from their meaning.

Which is what you are doing when you arbitrarily label anyone with whom you have a political disagreement as a "Nazi" or "fascist white supremacist."

CFR! CFR!! CFR!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, there was this one:

Quote

Quote

You wouldn't be saying that if you were summarily and arbitrarily called a "Nazi" and beaten up for it.

No, I would still be in favor on punching Nazis. I would probably have to punch the idiot (and possible Nazi) who claimed I was a Nazi too. But that is just a regular bump in the road for the dedicated Nazi Puncher.

And here:

Quote

I am concerned at people being concerned about the physical safety and comfort of fascists dedicating to overthrowing things I love and care about.

• Yeah, punching Nazis is funny and people should rejoice when it happens.
• Everyone should unite in joy at things that frustrate, stop, or harm Nazis.
• War “laws” are broken in every war. Repeatedly. So yes, extralegal {violence}.
• Punching Nazis is not wrong...
• I didn’t advocate for burning down the homes of Nazis………..yet.

Yeah, i can still stand behind that……..for now.

And here:

Quote

Quote

Thanks,

-Smac

And here:

Quote

Quote

On this very board one person - apparently a member of the Church, said (speaking of Antifa rioters) that he "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists"

What kind of sick perverts are we letting in here?

And here:

Quote

Quote

 

Sadly, I figured this.

And who are the "Nazis"?  Anyone that anyone else arbitrarily and/or summarily designates as such.

I am ashamed that a member of the Church is doing what you are doing.  That you are doing to after having received clear instruction from the Brethren only makes it worse.

 

I am ashamed that there are so many Nazis in the church. We all have our shame to bear.

And here:

Quote

Quote

 

Wrong? The occasions of Antifa egregiously punching non-Nazis are legion. Practically every act of violence committed by Antifa is against non-Nazis. 

Unless... our cities are densely populated by Nazis, thus necessitating Antifa's actions? Or, perhaps one could say that Antifa's Nazi-punching confers Nazihood, thus justifying them.

So, is that persistent target of Antifa, Andy Ngo, a Nazi, or just Nazi-adjacent?

Never mind. I expect that this thread will be locked in very short order, as it seems to be at least partly directed at you.

 

A Nazi. He has shown he is perfectly okay with violence as long as it is directed at the right people. He is a fascist and could use a few more punches.

And here:

Quote

Quote

What's a Nazi? And what makes a 'nazi' a nazi? The word nazi is now a loose fitting word. Likewise for fascist. What's a fascist? And who is a fascist?

In our heart of hearts are we not all Nazis? Let us embrace our inner Nazi and externally embrace all the Nazis around us.

Or we could look up the perfectly serviceable definitions of these terms that are in common use. I wonder why so many are embracing ambiguity on this issue to cloud everything so we can’t identify fascists. Who would benefit from such tactics? Hmmmmm……

And here:

Quote

And here:

Quote

Quote

Again, I do not know who these "fascists" are.

Antifa is arbitrarily designating anyone they dislike as "fascists."  It's fairly akin to Stalin's "enemy of the people" tactic.

But hey, it's worth a few giggles.  And sympathy.  So...

If you think Antifa's attacks and vandalism and digital harassment are arbitrary I am not sure how you can possibly function as a lawyer. Are you saying that they are equally likely to target a Trump rally as they are an elementary school play? Just as likely to attack a group of grandmothers out shopping as they are a bunch of weirdos cosplaying as Nazis? How did you reach this conclusion?

And here:

Quote

Quote

 

Wait, what’s happening here? You’re no longer insinuating that attendees at Trump rallies do Hitler salutes? What happened to <that> preposterous claim? 

Now it’s a matter of you’re being scandalized because (gasp! horror of horrors!) he asks his supporters to promise they will go vote on Election Day? 

 

No, I am still insinuating that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, there was this one:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Ummm….what part of that suggested punching non-Nazis? The only one I see is where someone punched me first and then I said I would punch them back. Surely you acknowledge the right to self-defense. Blocking people from an event isn’t punching.

Perhaps I can clarify one point though. I am also okay with punching KKK members. I apologize if omitting that was what caused the confusion.

Edit: Also included another punchable Nazi on this very page if you need an example.

Edited June 26, 2022 by The Nehor

[JAHS]

A protester at a Provo demonstration said (referring to an abortion she had) that her experience was “overwhelmingly positive,” and felt the stigma surrounding abortion makes it seem
more traumatic than it is — when abortion really is, she said, a medical procedure."

Of course it is a medical procedure. But execution by lethal injection is also a medical procedure with the same outcome. 

[sunstoned]

dupe

Edited June 26, 2022 by sunstoned

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

They did not lie. We have their testimony and she asked them about it in public. They said the same thing publicly that they said to her privately (per her statement).  They did say that precedents shouldn't be overturned for no reason. But they never promised to not overturn precedents.

I'm glad the other justices also never promised to overturn precedents. Because we have some that needed to be overturned and others that need to be overturned.

Susan said he was misleading and she is upset.  She was there, you weren't.

[The Nehor]

What fresh new hell is this?

 

The director of the Heritage Foundation with a modest proposal.

[Durangout]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

Ahhhh, another false equivalency. The logical fallacies just keep coming. 

Are you sure?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Durangout said:

Are you sure?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

 

Yep.

[mrmarklin]

According to Christian doctrine 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

 

Your body is not your own. This is the great fallacy of the pro abortion group. Of course it’s likely the vast majority are not Christians.  Or if they are, they don’t really believe. We have examples of this in Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by mrmarklin
Clarity.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ummm….what part of that suggested punching non-Nazis?

Most or all of them.

In this one, you said, in response to "You wouldn't be saying that if you were summarily and arbitrarily called a 'Nazi' and beaten up for it," that you would "punch the idiot (and possible Nazi)."  You are labeling him a "possible Nazi" not because you have any information or evidence that he is "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party," but because he arbitrarily called you a Nazi.

In this one, I posted a link to to protesters screaming at an elderly woman with a walker, calling her "Nazi scum."  And your response:

Neither you nor the protesters had evidence or information establishing that this woman is "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party."  Instead, the protesters (and, it seems, you) disagree with her politics (she was on her way to a rally for a conservative Canadian politician), so you endorse her beling labeled as "Nazi scum."  And since you have been very clear about using violence against "Nazis"...

In this one you said (speaking of Antifa rioters) that you "reserve the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists."  It seems exceedingly unlikely that Antifa rioters/protesters had any information or evidence that the people they were attacking were "member{s} of the National Socialist German Workers' Party."  Instead, you label anyone they attacked as "Nazis."

In this one you said that you are "ashamed that there are so many Nazis in the church."  I suspect you have no evidence or information about "many" members of the Church being  "member{s} of the National Socialist German Workers' Party."  

In this one, you labeled Andy Ngo a "Nazi."  I suspect you have no information or evidence that he is "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party."  But you dislike his politics, so you label him a "Nazi."

In this one you posted a link to a 1921 poem about doing violence to members of the KKK.  There are presently perhaps 5,000-8,000 members of the KKK.  And elsewhere in the thread you said you were "{s}till okay with Nazis getting punched."  Nothing in these references suggests any evidence of anyone actually being a member of the KKK, or of being "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party."  Instead, you are referencing the KKK and Nazis to describe people with whom you have political disagreements.  

In this one you admitted that you were "insinuating" that people whose political affiliation differs from yours were doing Hiter salutes at a Trump rally.  No evidence or information about them being  "member{s} of the National Socialist German Workers' Party."  

Again and again and again, you have demonstrated that you attach labels like "Nazi" and "fascist" and "white supremacist" and "KKK" to people about whom you have no evidence or information as to whether they are "member{s} of the National Socialist German Workers' Party," or whether they subscribe to "fascist" ideology, or that they believe in white supremacy, or that they are members of the KKK.  You have also very publicly stated, again and again and again, that you endorse and ratify and celebrate extralegal violence against people whom you and yours deem to be "Nazis" or "fascists" and so on.

You have now added me to the list of people against whom wanton, extralegal violence is justified, and which you endorse and justify:

Quote

smac97 is a fascist and a white supremacist who believes in Replacement Theory.

All along you have been hedging your bets, but not by much.  The plausible deniability is becoming less plausible.

All along you have been playing the provocateur, but at this point the seriousness is seeping through.  Whereas I originally thought you were just trying to agitate and offend, I now genuinely believe you when you advocate for extralegal violence.

I have previously said:

Quote

"Nazi" has long since had its original, intended, technical definition and meaning (that is, "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party") subordinated in favor of a purely pejorative, arbitrary, ad hoc, partisan meaning (anyone the violent mobocrat dislikes, for any reason or no reason at all).

And this:

Quote

"Fascist" and "White Supremacy" have also mostly had their original, intended, technical definitions and meanings (as in "a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism {a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism} and "the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society") subordinated in favor of, again, a purely pejorative, arbitrary, ad hoc, partisan meaning (anyone the violent mobocrat dislikes, for any reason or no reason at all).

You have demonstrated this over and over. 

An elderly woman with a walker crossing a street to attend a political rally you dislike is, to you, "Nazi scum," and hence is fair game for extralegal mobocratic violence.

A photograph of attendees at a Trump rally taken while they are raising their arms is sufficient for you to publicly "insinuate" that they are Nazis (that they were performing the "Hitler salute"), and hence are fair game for mobocratic violence. 

You dislike Andy Ngo because of his political beliefs, so you label him a "Nazi," and hence he is fair game for extralegal mobocrative violence.

And so on.

You are using these words ("Nazi," "Fascist," etc.) for their pejorative value, not their descriptive value.

You are using these words to justify and rationalize wanton violence against people you dislike because you disagree with their political beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 26, 2022 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

According to Christian doctrine 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

 

Your body is not your own. This is the great fallacy of the pro abortion group. Of course it’s likely the vast majority are not Christians.  Or if they are, they don’t really believe. We have examples of this in Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. 

Even if my body is not my own, it's still not your's, or the state's. 

See how easily you've used religion to justify controlling someone else's body?

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Even if my body is not my own, it's still not your's, or the state's. 

See how easily you've used religion to justify controlling someone else's body?

The irony... because controlling somebody else's body to the point of destroying it is exactly what abortion is.

The "my body" argument only works if there's only one body involved in the abortion.

Edited June 26, 2022 by JLHPROF

[ttribe]

@smac97Do you save these things in some document somewhere just so you can pull it out to beat down your opponent? 

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, cipriano said:

Well, that's the end goal, yes. But what is the stick used against the donors in trying to reach that goal?

This argument implies equal decision making in having sex.

Sometimes I think we forget that while it takes two to tango there is a difference between donating and receiving.  If pregnancy isn't wanted it's not that hard to avoid.  Don't accept any donations.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Ummm….what part of that suggested punching non-Nazis? The only one I see is where someone punched me first and then I said I would punch them back. Surely you acknowledge the right to self-defense. Blocking people from an event isn’t punching.

Perhaps I can clarify one point though. I am also okay with punching KKK members. I apologize if omitting that was what caused the confusion.

Edit: Also included another punchable Nazi on this very page if you need an example.

You have my vote. 

[carbon dioxide]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 Mostly due to republican efforts to stack the court with conservatives who do not represent the people of the. US. 

 

The Court is NOT supposed to be a political identity that represents the people.  That is what Congress is for.  The court is supposed to be like umpires in a baseball game.  They call balls and strikes on issues that are presented to them according to rules set forth in the Constitution.  If the Democrats wanted abortion to become actual law, they had 50 years to pass a federal law in Congress to do it.  Contrary to the views of some, Roe vs Wade was not the law of the land. It was a court decision.  The Supreme Court is not a law making body.  There is only one body that makes law in the US and that is Congress.  By ignoring the simple facts of the Constitution and how things work, the Democrats have themselves to blame by making it easy for the Supreme court to reverse the ruling of an earlier one. 

Lets not pretend that the left does not stack judges that are consistent to leftist views.  The Democrats do what the Republicans do when they have the chance. When is the last time a Democrat president nominated a conservative judge to the court? 

Edited June 26, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[MikeFoxtrot]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The irony... because controlling somebody else's body to the point of destroying it is exactly what abortion is.

The "my body" argument only works if there's only one body involved in the abortion.

How do you determine when a zygote becomes a human body?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

@smac97Do you save these things in some document somewhere just so you can pull it out to beat down your opponent? 

No.

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The irony... because controlling somebody else's body to the point of destroying it is exactly what abortion is.

The "my body" argument only works if there's only one body involved in the abortion.

No irony:

Who does a woman's body belong to?

Her body doesn't belong to you or the other poster or the state. Even if it's not hers, she's the steward over her body. Who does the unborn belong to? Not you, not the other poster, not the state. At the very least, the mother is the steward over the body of the unborn inside her, not you, not the state.

Let's be real, real clear about this. I'm the captain of my body, not you, not the state. Leave me alone, leave women's bodies alone. Respect womens' stewardship over their bodies and over the human bodies inside them. Doing otherwise constitutes dehumanization of women.

It's not any surprise that this overturning happened when you have people jumping from the concept of "our bodies are not our own" to "her body is not hers, therefore let us use the state to control her."