Literature Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 13 hours ago, John Slayne said: That's not playing semantics, that's what it literally is according to the medical definition of an abortion. Deal with it. YOU are the one trying to change the definition to support your narrative. Because you are more interested in being right than to have an honest intellectual conversation, I have provided good and consistent arguments throughout without having to resort to strawmen and made up concepts with no justifications, unlike you. Funny how you once again ignore most of my points to focus on the definition, the one thing I am 100% correct anyway regardless of how people feel about abortions anyway and I have actually provided receipts for that, unlike you. Again, how are the fundamental goals different? Why is it okay to not use your kidney to save a life but it is not okay to not use your uterus to save a life? You still have yet to answer this. Out of all the reasons listed here, please find the ones where NOT killing the fetus would still accomplish the goal of the abortion, even if it was somehow possible to keep it alive.
Happylittlepunk Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 I am still super new to politics but idk forgive me for asking a dumb question but does it say anywhere in the constitution that supreme court judges must serve permanently? Can the other branches of government make a law or bill that forces the judges to have term limits in the Supreme Court in the future? I feel like this will be the only way all this can be solved in the future. There also needs to be term limits for Congress people too why for example a senator is a allowed to senate the same state for 20 years or more.
bad guy Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 18 minutes ago, Happylittlepunk said: I am still super new to politics but idk forgive me for asking a dumb question but does it say anywhere in the constitution that supreme court judges must serve permanently? Can the other branches of government make a law or bill that forces the judges to have term limits in the Supreme Court in the future? I feel like this will be the only way all this can be solved in the future. There also needs to be term limits for Congress people too why for example a senator is a allowed to senate the same state for 20 years or more. In the Constitution it states that the only way a Supreme Court justice can leave their position is with impeachment. Congress will never do that. In order to create term limits there would need to be a Constitutional amendment, which again won't happen anytime soon.
byzantium Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 15 minutes ago, Happylittlepunk said: I am still super new to politics but idk forgive me for asking a dumb question but does it say anywhere in the constitution that supreme court judges must serve permanently? Can the other branches of government make a law or bill that forces the judges to have term limits in the Supreme Court in the future? I feel like this will be the only way all this can be solved in the future. There also needs to be term limits for Congress people too why for example a senator is a allowed to senate the same state for 20 years or more. This is not a dumb question at all. The US constitution actually says very little about the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch was very much an afterthought for the framers. There is very little the Constitution actually says about the Branch. And it ays that, "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour (This is not a spelling error on my part), and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Now, the thing you should realize about the Supreme Court, is they have very frequently, "interpret" anything to mean whatever their political beliefs require. It does not really matter what the constitution says, but more about what the justices want it to say. So here, a very reasonable reading would say that a term limit is not in violation of the constitution. BUT I absolutely think the current court will still construe any term limit as unconstitutional.
Jan Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 I mean… this ruling does not ban abortion, it just removes the ban on states banning abortion. I guess that some people will think it’s bad, but ultimately the people who live in states who are about to ban abortions want abortions banned in their states.
DONTYELLATME Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 3 minutes ago, Jan said: I mean… this ruling does not ban abortion, it just removes the ban on states banning abortion. I guess that some people will think it’s bad, but ultimately the people who live in states who are about to ban abortions want abortions banned in their states. This is not true, for example only 35 percent of Texans want abortion banned completely
A Bomb Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 4 hours ago, Literature said: Out of all the reasons listed here, please find the ones where NOT killing the fetus would still accomplish the goal of the abortion, even if it was somehow possible to keep it alive. a white gay obsessing over a decision he won't ever have to make. Like you're still a groomer in their eyes. You still shouldn't be able to have kids in any capacity for being a fairy, babe. Your emotions don't trump someone's right to privacy or bodily autonomy. You may feel whatever twisted anger you want at these women, but in no logical sense does that justify the actions. Only the lunatics, and extremists can delude yourself that is the case. THIS IS THE MAJOR POINT. There is no middle ground with these extremists. Please, liberals get that through your thick skulls. THEY WANT IT BANNED. THEY WANT SEX TO HAVE CONSEQUENCES. The irony for any gay to fall for that hateful ideology.
Mr. Loco Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 On 6/26/2022 at 12:56 PM, John Slayne said: Well, a foetus growing inside of another person *affects* that human being, so what is your point? The foetus has no right to use someone's body against their consent. Your decision not to donate your kidney affects people waiting for a transplant, but nobody's forcing you to give up your kidney, are they? That's because bodily autonomy is a basic human right and trumps even other people's right to life. Even if foetus is a person, it is not entitled to use gestator's body to sustain itself. Well, if you are all for body autonomy and hypothetical questions, would you be in favor if a woman decided to end a pregnancy of 25-30 weeks (the child still could live, but with a high probability of long term complications)? It would be interesting to know about your answer. On 6/26/2022 at 5:56 PM, A Bomb said: Good things cells comparable to a parasite unable to live outside the host isn’t a human yet Except those are human cells, unique and differet to either of it's parents, and unlike a parasite, a physiological human condition, not a disease.
A Bomb Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 Just now, Mr. Loco said: Except those are human cells, unique and differet to either of it's parents, and unlike a parasite, a physiological human condition, not a disease. that cannot live outside the damn body of a full developed human. Please get over your sick obsession over controlling a whole other person's body. It's deranged regardless of however you decide to convince yourself it isn't!
Literature Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mr. Loco said: Well, if you are all for body autonomy and hypothetical questions, would you be in favor if a woman decided to end a pregnancy of 25-30 weeks (the child still could live, but with a high probability of long term complications)? It would be interesting to know about your answer. Except those are human cells, unique and different to either of it's parents, and unlike a parasite, a physiological human condition, not a disease. Oh so basically you're saying you hate all women and want to control their uteruses for your own twisted, tyrannical, patriarchal fantasy?? This is the only logical conclusion if you are against the termination of human life! Edited June 28, 2022 by Literature
Mr. Loco Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 41 minutes ago, Literature said: Oh so basically you're saying you hate all women and want to control their uteruses for your own twisted, tyrannical, patriarchal fantasy?? This is the only logical conclusion if you are against the termination of human life! There's no correlation at all with what you are saying and my post
Literature Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Mr. Loco said: There's no correlation at all with what you are saying and my post i know im supporting you. i was being sarcastic. Shows how ridiculous some of the talking points on here are that you couldn't even tell Edited June 28, 2022 by Literature
A Bomb Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 30 minutes ago, Mr. Loco said: There's no correlation at all with what you are saying and my post 27 minutes ago, Literature said: i know im supporting you. i was being sarcastic
Mr. Loco Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 3 hours ago, Literature said: i know im supporting you. i was being sarcastic. Shows how ridiculous some of the talking points on here are that you couldn't even tell Sorry But agree, that's exactly how their thinking works, so it's hard to tell sarcasm lol
Mr. Mendes Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 6 hours ago, Mr. Loco said: Except those are human cells, unique and differet to either of it's parents, and unlike a parasite, a physiological human condition, not a disease. But it’s still just a bundle of cells that cannot sustain life. It is not a person, therefore I am not going to grant that clump of formless cells precedence over the actual fully living human woman who is carrying it.
Bloodflowers. Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 On 6/26/2022 at 9:11 AM, James_Dean said: Wbk that is what that white woman yelled at Trump rally about saving white lives
Headlock Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 15 hours ago, Mr. Loco said: Except those are human cells, unique and differet to either of it's parents, and unlike a parasite, a physiological human condition, not a disease. A zygote is not human, a blastula is not a human, it is literally a ball of cells that would die outside the womb
Recommended Posts