Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[was thatguy]

no. it is unethical to commit 3 ethical breaches. 1st breach is the invasion of privacy in the decision about family formation, 2nd is the breach in guaranteed liberty of self and soul (more important than the first breach). I think you capitulate that "Want to get an abortion then go right ahead, in fact get multiple ones if you so feel the need to, not my business and don't care." My own personal approach results in the same conclusion, except I have faith in the other human that thye are doing what's best for them and theirs. Parents have every right of hegemony over their children after they are born and until they are 18. To intervene in their family decisions is reprehensible.


Um. You better look up 'chattel'.

Yes, thank you. it is valuable to me to hear your perspective. I am glad we can discuss this honorably and deeply. I assume most people understand law and our existing statutory law and terms like 'agency'. It is becoming apparent that I must explain much at length.

Within the law, you are A-OK by me. Granting liberty is a habit. Tell me: do you believe we in USA have too much liberty?

YES!
This is a key part of law and being and citizenship to consider. (Think: Anchor babies) The debate over the medical procedure is a distraction.
maybe someone will begin considering the root of our statutory problem here. Examine the roots of why parents have agency over children who have not reached the age of majority and report back here.


YES! as stated above, the debate over the medical procedure is a distraction.
begin considering the root of our statutory problem here. Examine the roots of why parents have agency over children who have not reached the age of majority and report back here.

No, we’ve moved on.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

People aren't a disappointment as a whole. They are individuals, some capable of phenomenal things, others a waste of resources. The problems we have stem from only focusing on helping those that won't help themselves, or idolizing those that are a success. The middle 90% are still worth saving, or giving a chance. Some of them may even be born to the lower 5% that drain humanity.

yes, you are right.
I hope we in USA can appreciate how good we have it. Still, 2 million Americans do not have running water. 1/3 of humanity does not have access to safe drinking water. That's just a basic thing like water.
We are incredibly fortunate to be living here, to be able to digress philosophically in air conditioned comfort about how terrible each other's morals and values and ethics are.

 

[Doc]

no. it is unethical to commit ethical breaches. 1st breach is the invasion of privacy in the decision about family formation, 2nd is the breach in guaranteed liberty of self and soul (more important than the first breach). I think you capitulated when you said that "Want to get an abortion then go right ahead, in fact get multiple ones if you so feel the need to, not my business and don't care." My own personal approach results in the same conclusion, except I have faith in the other human that they are doing what's best for them and theirs. Parents have every right of hegemony over their children after they are born and until they are 18. To intervene in their family decisions is reprehensible.

Cool, we just see things a little different is all. You have a ton of faith in humans then also, especially when the stats show 90% or more abortions are just used as a form of birth control. I will say this though that depending on what side you are on parents only have rights of their children before they are born. Seems to me if you don't see eye to eye with certain school boards on CRT, LGBTQ, and other radical left wing ideologies they feel you shouldn't have those same rights you speak of.

Lastly, my comparison which you dodge isn't a bait or tactic by any means, and i know why you haven't answered it. It's because it might show hypocrisy on your part and I get it.

Still evading the comparison Chris? So before I answer your question regarding if we have to much Liberty respond to that and report back here and we can continue.

 

[Danger Dave]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553390031867371520

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Yes, thank you. I really do appreciate this dialogue.

stats show 90% or more abortions are just used as a form of birth control

100% of abortions are birth control. That stat, wherever it came from, is deeply flawed. Can you cite your source?

school boards

CRT, LGBTQ,

radical left wing ideologies

you are going into the weeds. it would be great if we could sort this out without distraction.
My friend, you and I are not exactly in disagreement. I am only trying to understand why and how family formation, birth control, and parents agency over their children is founded in your mind. In addition, it would be good to hear the basis of your rationale for objecting to a form of birth control because 'your money' is being spent...please draw a line form your pocket to the birth control...it would help explain that alot. I need to know because I have tried to determine if 'my money' is being spent.

 

[Danger Dave]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553545819831296000

 

[was thatguy]

Yes, thank you. I really do appreciate this dialogue.

100% of abortions are birth control. That stat, wherever it came from, is deeply flawed. Can you cite your source?




you are going into the weeds. it would be great if we could sort this out without distraction.
My friend, you and I are not exactly in disagreement. I am only trying to understand why and how family formation, birth control, and parents agency over their children is founded in your mind. In addition, it would be good to hear the basis of your rationale for objecting to a form of birth control because 'your money' is being spent...please draw a line form your pocket to the birth control...it would help explain that alot. I need to know because I have tried to determine if 'my money' is being spent.

Jesus Christ Lucy, at least change the words up a little!
Look, parents can’t go around killing their kids without consequence whenever they choose to. At least not in this country.
The only question as far as abortion is WHEN is it a kid.

You can’t just keep saying “agency” when you are talking about everything from the pill to infanticide.
C’mon man!!

 

[Christopher Lucero]

The only question as far as abortion is WHEN is it a kid.

You can’t just keep saying “agency” when you are talking about everything from the pill to infanticide.

You are on to the logical process of court escalations when you play out the response to 'the only question', as you posed it.
The problem with the current fantasy the Republicans are selling as a 'victory' is that it will not hold. Medical controls like 'abortion' or any form of birth control and rights to family formation is based in 'agency' - who has it and when.
I do not believe any of the so-called-freedom-loving-conservatives here would decide that gubberment has agency that comes between a parent and a child. OR...forces a family to be formed when it is expressly not wanted.
I am awaiting the logical pretzel that would argue for it as a Constitutionally based limit onto Americans' personal liberty.
I have been pointing the team toward that for a while. Glad you have clarified it for everyone, Tommy.
considering these 2 Hints: age of majority (currently defining the upper age limit to parental agency) and HIPAA statutory limits on who can see what health information without a warrant or consent from provider/patient. Both these are federal law that states cannot supersede.
Play out the tortuous courtroom path between now and 2031. We are likely to witness L-O-N-G stays of execution and delays and frustration as the legal for and against are weighed. ultimately to be incorporated in HIPAA codification and in a clarification in Age of Majority law.
One other hint: review the laws about why a mother who is an illegal bearing a baby who was conceived in USA (q.v: Anchor baby) ...why that mother is protected and not deported.

 

[was thatguy]

You are on to the logical process of court escalations when you play out the response to 'the only question', as you posed it.
The problem with the current fantasy the Republicans are selling as a 'victory' is that it will not hold. Medical controls like 'abortion' or any form of birth control and rights to family formation is based in 'agency' - who has it and when.
I do not believe any of the so-called-freedom-loving-conservatives here would decide that gubberment has agency that comes between a parent and a child. OR...forces a family to be formed when it is expressly not wanted.
I am awaiting the logical pretzel that would argue for it as a Constitutionally based limit onto Americans' personal liberty.
I have been pointing the team toward that for a while. Glad you have clarified it for everyone, Tommy.
considering these 2 Hints: age of majority (currently defining the upper age limit to parental agency) and HIPAA statutory limits on who can see what health information without a warrant or consent from provider/patient. Both these are federal law that states cannot supersede.
Play out the tortuous courtroom path between now and 2031. We are likely to witness L-O-N-G stays of execution and delays and frustration as the legal for and against are weighed. ultimately to be incorporated in HIPAA codification and in a clarification in Age of Majority law.
One other hint: review the laws about why a mother who is an illegal bearing a baby who was conceived in USA (q.v: Anchor baby) ...why that mother is protected and not deported.

I said “as far as abortion”.

 

[spectra3279]

You are on to the logical process of court escalations when you play out the response to 'the only question', as you posed it.
The problem with the current fantasy the Republicans are selling as a 'victory' is that it will not hold. Medical controls like 'abortion' or any form of birth control and rights to family formation is based in 'agency' - who has it and when.
I do not believe any of the so-called-freedom-loving-conservatives here would decide that gubberment has agency that comes between a parent and a child. OR...forces a family to be formed when it is expressly not wanted.
I am awaiting the logical pretzel that would argue for it as a Constitutionally based limit onto Americans' personal liberty.
I have been pointing the team toward that for a while. Glad you have clarified it for everyone, Tommy.
considering these 2 Hints: age of majority (currently defining the upper age limit to parental agency) and HIPAA statutory limits on who can see what health information without a warrant or consent from provider/patient. Both these are federal law that states cannot supersede.
Play out the tortuous courtroom path between now and 2031. We are likely to witness L-O-N-G stays of execution and delays and frustration as the legal for and against are weighed. ultimately to be incorporated in HIPAA codification and in a clarification in Age of Majority law.
One other hint: review the laws about why a mother who is an illegal bearing a baby who was conceived in USA (q.v: Anchor baby) ...why that mother is protected and not deported.

Dude there are enough forms of birth control out there. Most are free. There should never be a reason for abortion other than saving the life of the mother.

 

[was thatguy]

Dude there are enough forms of birth control out there. Most are free. There should never be a reason for abortion other than saving the life of the mother.

Im trying to figure out how he confused the Supreme Court with the GOP?

 

[pronstar]

Up is down.
Black is white.
True freedom is dependent on the legalities of killing unborn children.
You’re a racist.

 

[caribbean20]

And the abortion foes get trounced in Kansas, by a landslide. Mimics popular opinion across America. The far right would be wise to tread lightly on this issue as we approach mid-terms.

 

[Sandlord]

And the abortion foes get trounced in Kansas, by a landslide. Mimics popular opinion across America. The far right would be wise to tread lightly on this issue as we approach mid-terms.

Kansas abortion vote was too deceptively written for most voters. Vote NO for yes to abortion.

 

[530RL]

And the abortion foes get trounced in Kansas, by a landslide. Mimics popular opinion across America. The far right would be wise to tread lightly on this issue as we approach mid-terms.

No matter where one falls on the issue, it certainly turned out the vote.

"The number of votes cast in Johnson County this election was more than double those cast in the 2018 primary, about 100,000 more than for the 2020 presidential primary election and about 90,000 votes shy of the county’s total votes in the 2020 general election, when turnout was 74%."

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article263946446.html

 

[was thatguy]

And the abortion foes get trounced in Kansas, by a landslide. Mimics popular opinion across America. The far right would be wise to tread lightly on this issue as we approach mid-terms.

Who’s the far right these days?

 

[caribbean20]

Kansas abortion vote was too deceptively written for most voters. Vote NO for yes to abortion.

it was a ballot initiative to overturn the KS Supreme Court decision protecting abortion rights. I think it’s a stretch to insinuate deception. They knew for what they were voting.

No matter where one falls on the issue, it certainly turned out the vote.

"The number of votes cast in Johnson County this election was more than double those cast in the 2018 primary, about 100,000 more than for the 2020 presidential primary election and about 90,000 votes shy of the county’s total votes in the 2020 general election, when turnout was 74%."

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article263946446.html

I’ve been saying all along, this is a “line in the sand issue.” KS results suggest the same.

 

[Danger Dave]

She's embarrassing.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1554890865117724672

 

[was thatguy]

it was a ballot initiative to overturn the KS Supreme Court decision protecting abortion rights. I think it’s a stretch to insinuate deception. They knew for what they were voting.

I’ve been saying all along, this is a “line in the sand issue.” KS results suggest the same.

It wasnt quite that dramatic, although granted the media is pumping it for all its worth.
It was a proposed amendment to the state constitution to eliminate the right to an abortion that was rejected.
Nothing was “overturned”, so in effect nothing changes for the state of KS.
Good for them.
Personally I think 22 weeks is pushing it, but I’m not a fanatical abortion crusader either way.

I am confused about the repeated notion (not at you) that the GOP somehow overturned RvW and it wasn’t the the SC that overturned it.

I realize both sides are riding the tides both ways, but one big mushroom cloud and we’ll forget all about this somewhat irrelevant side show.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

It wasnt quite that dramatic, although granted the media is pumping it for all its worth.
It was a proposed amendment to the state constitution to eliminate the right to an abortion that was rejected.
Nothing was “overturned”, so in effect nothing changes for the state of KS.
Good for them.
Personally I think 22 weeks is pushing it, but I’m not a fanatical abortion crusader either way.

I am confused about the repeated notion (not at you) that the GOP somehow overturned RvW and it wasn’t the the SC that overturned it.

I realize both sides are riding the tides both ways, but one big mushroom cloud and we’ll forget all about this somewhat irrelevant side show.

You and I the only ones up?
I’m in Brasília waiting on a domestic flight.

 

[sprintcvx]

I believe this is how the bill was written.

 

[was thatguy]

I believe this is how the bill was written.
View attachment 1143124

That’s as clear as mud.

 

[94Nautique]

Mr Monkey.
I know you are a family man. You are a good man. You have described troubles - we all have - and you have described the joys of surmounting them. It is a joy to know that fortune and effort coalesce into success.
I however do know - personally - many who do not enjoy such luck and willful effort or effectiveness, and for them I have decided devote my christian forgiveness and mercy to the largest extent I can.
thus
I want to argue for a woman's liberty to choose a future for a family that suits her own moral existence. it is the only way I can assure that families being formed have the absolute best possible starting point, and to battle against divorce and family sadness.
I do not like the idea that the government or some rando governor or administrator would have the unmitigated audacity to intercede in a choice this personal with such far reaching consequences. Authoritarian BS like that is confounding to increasing freedom, and points to decreasing liberty.
to me: If USA is not increasing liberty, we are moving in the wrong direction.
HOWEVER,
there ARE definitely opportunities for ANY citizen to abuse liberty.
So, everyone has to determine their own approach to how they will treat others within that construct of ethics based in their morals and values.
This ranges from 'reportnik' goons who are constantly involving their HOA in tiny skirmishes over who is cutting their lawn to the right height, or the snitch culture that law enforcement to a large degree depends upon, to lassiez faire attitudes that enable homelessness to go unsolved, to moralizing about others at church/temple on sabbath.
I object to reportniks and snitches, strangers and outsiders being given any quarter with personal decisions regarding family. I am almost certain you will agree.

"I want to argue for a woman's liberty to choose a future for a family that suits her own moral existence."

So clearly, you are talking about the unborn female baby, that will over time mature into a woman, right?

Or are you only saying that men should be able to fuck women with no consequences if the woman's moral existence is OK with that, even though they've not likely thought it through.

Males that advocate for abortion are noted pigs, who want to subjugate women to sex objects. That's a fact, especially given that over 50% of the babies being killed are future women.

 

[caribbean20]

I am confused about the repeated notion (not at you) that the GOP somehow overturned RvW and it wasn’t the the SC that overturned it.

A GOP pres put 3 justices on the SC, all voting to overturn. Like it or not, the GOP owns this one.

 

[was thatguy]

Even Ginsberg said that RvW was not a constitutional matter and would not stand up to review.
I’d say the correction is working just as it should.
The people of KS have spoken, they can thank the SC (or the GOP I guess?) for giving them back the choice to run their state as they wish on matters falling outside of constitutional guideline.

Personally, I think pandering for votes is a bad idea, and taking an insincere position out of fear of losing votes is what leads us to more of the same old bullshit.
Tell me the truth, I’ll vote accordingly.
Most of our voting decisions and debates (especially primaries) seem to revolve around who’s telling the truth and who isn’t.

 

[pronstar]

 

[Christopher Lucero]

"I want to argue for a woman's liberty to choose a future for a family that suits her own moral existence."

So clearly, you are talking about the unborn female baby, that will over time mature into a woman, right?

Or are you only saying that men should be able to fuck women with no consequences if the woman's moral existence is OK with that, even though they've not likely thought it through.

Males that advocate for abortion are noted pigs, who want to subjugate women to sex objects. That's a fact, especially given that over 50% of the babies being killed are future women.

weak. projectionism. rejiggering.
have another drink or bowl

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Dude there are enough forms of birth control out there. Most are free. There should never be a reason for abortion other than saving the life of the mother.

It's OK to have that opinion. However, without examining the 'agency' problem, you will never be able to defend a position that must have a legal foundation in constitutional principles. Go back and try again

 

[Doc]

It's OK to have that opinion. However, without examining the 'agency' problem, you will never be able to defend a position that must have a legal foundation in constitutional principles. Go back and try again

What about examining other forms of birth control to? I think you are really misunderstanding the debate here Chris. People stating their opinion that there are other forms of BC that could prevent abortions isn't telling a family what to do it's providing an alternate path that avoids abortions, that is all.

 

[94Nautique]

weak. projectionism. rejiggering.
have another drink or bowl

Abortions kill females more often than males. So if that's projectionism or rejiggering to you, no one can have a rational discussion with you.

Killing babies, in the womb, is beyond barbaric. Men that are OK with that, do not want to own up to the responsibility of the outcomes of bustin a nut.

Again, this is fact.

Sorry if that hurts.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Abortions kill females more often than males. So if that's projectionism or rejiggering to you, no one can have a rational discussion with you.

Killing babies, in the womb, is beyond barbaric. Men that are OK with that, do not want to own up to the responsibility of the outcomes of bustin a nut.

Again, this is fact.

Sorry if that hurts.

I am afraid you have confused an argument about legal matters with an argument/confrontation about opinion.
Polemics lose in a court of law

 

[Christopher Lucero]

What about examining other forms of birth control to? I think you are really misunderstanding the debate here Chris. People stating their opinion that there are other forms of BC that could prevent abortions isn't telling a family what to do it's providing an alternate path that avoids abortions, that is all.

I am afraid you have confused an argument about legal matters with an argument/confrontation about opinion.
Polemics lose in a court of law

 

[94Nautique]

I am afraid you have confused an argument about legal matters with an argument/confrontation about opinion.
Polemics lose in a court of law

and its bad killing babies is which, in your mind? Legal or opinion?

 

[Christopher Lucero]

and its bad killing babies is which, in your mind? Legal or opinion?

I am under no obligation to answer that. I merely come here to hear how this is supposed to all work out for you guys. Opinion, as I said, is not a legal strategy. In fact, it is a prescription for frustration, which I suggest you ponder ... who is baiting you? who is leading you astray?

 

[94Nautique]

I am under no obligation to answer that. I merely come here to hear how this is supposed to all work out for you guys. Opinion, as I said, is not a legal strategy. In fact, it is a prescription for frustration, which I suggest you ponder ... who is baiting you? who is leading you astray?

Baiting? You are the master. Carry on.

 

[spectra3279]

It's OK to have that opinion. However, without examining the 'agency' problem, you will never be able to defend a position that must have a legal foundation in constitutional principles. Go back and try again

I'm just stating a simple fact. With all the free birth control options, why is abortion needed for reasons other than medical, rape or incest?

 

[retaocleg]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553390031867371520

wouldnt put it past the chief himself..........so we will prolly never know

 

[was thatguy]

It's OK to have that opinion. However, without examining the 'agency' problem, you will never be able to defend a position that must have a legal foundation in constitutional principles. Go back and try again

I should have never sent you that “word of the day” calendar…

 

[TeamGreene]

She's embarrassing.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1554890865117724672

My god. This is why idiots are running around saying this shit.

 

[94Nautique]

I'm just stating a simple fact. With all the free birth control options, why is abortion needed for reasons other than medical, rape or incest?

For liberal men to have dominion over weak minded women, that is why abortion exists.

 

[94Nautique]

I should have never sent you that “word of the day” calendar…

Agency of the unborn. Someone kills a pregnant woman, they get a double homicide charge. A liberal kills a baby nside a woman, and they get paid. How does agency work here, loose churro.

 

[regor]

I’ve been saying all along, this is a “line in the sand issue.” KS results suggest the same.

How you feeling about this prediction?

 

[caribbean20]

View attachment 1164517


How you feeling about this prediction?

Good question. I’ve been thinking a lot about the issue since we last discussed, and the impact it may have on the mid-terms. Amongst women I know, mostly professionals and moderate, it remains a line in the sand issue.

But as you know, politics are local and several states have the issue on their ballot. Republicans have, for the most part, kept their mouths shut on the issue, because they know it’s a loser. Better to keep your mouth shut than spout off and remove all doubt.

I suppose for many, it will be a balancing act. How strong do I feel about this issue versus the sad state of the country and the lurch to the left towards socialism, when there are competing candidates.

I really don’t know how it will all play out. I do believe it would have been a landslide for Republicans but for this issue, a shoot yourself in the foot moment.

It will be interesting to watch. Inflation, high gas prices and immigration are a disaster for the Dems. Let’s hope voters pull their heads out of their asses on this go around.

 

[caribbean20]

The abortion issue has faded among white suburban women, a key demographic. They are trended to Republican due to significant economic issues and blaming the Dems, rightfully so. The abortion issue has dropped to 3rd most important. I thought abortion would remain front and center, maybe not.

WSJ News Exclusive | White Suburban Women Swing Toward Backing Republicans for Congress

A new Wall Street Journal poll shows the key group of midterm voters favors the GOP by 15 percentage points.

www.wsj.com

 

[regor]

The abortion issue has faded among white suburban women, a key demographic. They are trended to Republican due to significant economic issues and blaming the Dems, rightfully so. The abortion issue has dropped to 3rd most important. I thought abortion would remain front and center, maybe not.

WSJ News Exclusive | White Suburban Women Swing Toward Backing Republicans for Congress

A new Wall Street Journal poll shows the key group of midterm voters favors the GOP by 15 percentage points.

www.wsj.com

Appreciate the answers and the stones it took to come back and answer. I actually just saw them or I would have replied sooner.

There’s no way in hell abortion is #3 concern for Republican and Independent women. It’s not even in the top three for Democrat women due to the imbeciles the uni-party put in power. The WSJ is pure garbage when it comes political and cultural issues. They were bought and paid for long ago.

Economy
Inflation
Crime
Healthcare

And when dealing with R & I moms, they are more concerned with protecting their children from the mentally ill teachers.

 

[caribbean20]

Appreciate the answers and the stones it took to come back and answer. I actually just saw them or I would have replied sooner.

There’s no way in hell abortion is #3 concern for Republican and Independent women. It’s not even in the top three for Democrat women due to the imbeciles the uni-party put in power. The WSJ is pure garbage when it comes political and cultural issues. They were bought and paid for long ago.

Economy
Inflation
Crime
Healthcare

And when dealing with R & I moms, they are more concerned with protecting their children from the mentally ill teachers.

Well . . . appears abortion rights WAS a big issue.

 

[monkeyswrench]

Well . . . appears abortion rights WAS a big issue.

Oddly, hadn't heard a damn thing about it here, on the radio, from candidates or from people...for months.

Hearing all about it this morning in the media though.

 

[HST4ME]

Shit, we've been bludgeoned by it 24/7 for months here.

 

[caribbean20]

Pyrrhic victory. Waterloo for the Republicans. This is a line in the sand for many moderates, including me, come election time (social moderate, fiscal conservative, independent, who usually votes republican).

Please excuse the arrogance to quote my own post, but I was afraid of this months ago, specifically May 3, 2022. Sadly, it came to fruition.

 

[monkeyswrench]

Shit, we've been bludgeoned by it 24/7 for months here.

That's weird! I wonder if it's a demographic thing. The candidates here may have done different ads for different markets. Up here, not so much, but in Phoenix and Tucson maybe?