FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Row vs Wade 2

Row vs Wade 2

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Go at it it it's a unique perspective since I live here. Everyone's. voice counts.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

america needs to rethink its existence

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

The Great Experiment Failed

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"america needs to rethink its existence"

How so ? Individual states choosing thier dumb destiny's while others choose different is a bad thing? It's what the population wants.let me be clear I agree with women's rights to abortion. But if they don't want it whom am I to decide.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The Great Experiment Failed"
no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices. "

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Go at it it it's a unique perspective since I live here. Everyone's. voice counts."

Okay.. a few… 1) all of those states threatening to prosecute people who go out of state won’t because the federal government will come after them as interstate travel is covered by the constitution, and if for example, let say Apple, were to deny states access to gps data (p.s turn off location services!!!) they have no case

2) abortion rights , voting rights and same sex rights just became front and centre in the mid terms…. Republicans may have secretly wanted it… but judge Thomas opinion is going to make them have to defend it publicly and This will galvanised the democrats base to go out and vote

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go at it it it's a unique perspective since I live here. Everyone's. voice counts.

Fabio you more then anyone understands the politics. You know republican states are going to do thier thing as well as democrat states. I just glad I live in a nuetral state. Bible states can kiss my arse. But the voted they accept the consequences.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment. "

you literally have less freedoms that the majority of Eurpope.

The USA brely places in the top 20 according to the Human Freedom Index.

And those freedoms are being stripped away as we speak. You have already happily ignored how I have shown that this isnt a victory for states rights.

But well done on drinking the USA Koolaid!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment.

you literally have less freedoms that the majority of Eurpope.

The USA brely places in the top 20 according to the Human Freedom Index.

And those freedoms are being stripped away as we speak. You have already happily ignored how I have shown that this isnt a victory for states rights.

But well done on drinking the USA Koolaid!"

Yet the people not the government choose those freedoms. Just because you have a " give" mentality I am at fault ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Hive

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

What happened to taking care of your own family.. what happened to not being reliant on government to control your every decision?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment.

you literally have less freedoms that the majority of Eurpope.

The USA brely places in the top 20 according to the Human Freedom Index.

And those freedoms are being stripped away as we speak. You have already happily ignored how I have shown that this isnt a victory for states rights.

But well done on drinking the USA Koolaid!

Yet the people not the government choose those freedoms. Just because you have a " give" mentality I am at fault ?"

But the People are Pro Choice, the People are Pro Gun Control, the People are Pro LGBTQIA... yet your states laws are not going in this direction. Your country has been hijacked by an extreme right wing cult

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment.

you literally have less freedoms that the majority of Eurpope.

The USA brely places in the top 20 according to the Human Freedom Index.

And those freedoms are being stripped away as we speak. You have already happily ignored how I have shown that this isnt a victory for states rights.

But well done on drinking the USA Koolaid!

Yet the people not the government choose those freedoms. Just because you have a " give" mentality I am at fault ?

It's a farce .. we had the biggest increase in gun sales the past couple years because of government. left and right alike why is that?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment.

you literally have less freedoms that the majority of Eurpope.

The USA brely places in the top 20 according to the Human Freedom Index.

And those freedoms are being stripped away as we speak. You have already happily ignored how I have shown that this isnt a victory for states rights.

But well done on drinking the USA Koolaid!

Yet the people not the government choose those freedoms. Just because you have a " give" mentality I am at fault ?

It's a farce .. we had the biggest increase in gun sales the past couple years because of government. left and right alike why is that? "

You speak as though Gun Control can ONLY mean less guns... that answers a lot actually

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Can I interject? I've just finished reading the last thread and have to ask what's with all the "people with uteruses"? Did my very early education teach me wrong that the noun woman came from 'womb man'? I get trans men still have uteruses and may even get pregnant but aside from that that, I think I'd rather be called a cis woman than a person with a uterus.

Anyway as you were all you people with cocks and people with uteruses

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment.

you literally have less freedoms that the majority of Eurpope.

The USA brely places in the top 20 according to the Human Freedom Index.

And those freedoms are being stripped away as we speak. You have already happily ignored how I have shown that this isnt a victory for states rights.

But well done on drinking the USA Koolaid!

Yet the people not the government choose those freedoms. Just because you have a " give" mentality I am at fault ?

It's a farce .. we had the biggest increase in gun sales the past couple years because of government. left and right alike why is that?

You speak as though Gun Control can ONLY mean less guns... that answers a lot actually"
40O million guns you decide the outcome with illegal search and seizure how do you think that will end.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment.

you literally have less freedoms that the majority of Eurpope.

The USA brely places in the top 20 according to the Human Freedom Index.

And those freedoms are being stripped away as we speak. You have already happily ignored how I have shown that this isnt a victory for states rights.

But well done on drinking the USA Koolaid!

Yet the people not the government choose those freedoms. Just because you have a " give" mentality I am at fault ?

It's a farce .. we had the biggest increase in gun sales the past couple years because of government. left and right alike why is that?

You speak as though Gun Control can ONLY mean less guns... that answers a lot actually 40O million guns you decide the outcome with illegal search and seizure how do you think that will end."

Again you are just showing you think Gun Control only means people are coming for your guns. Which has never been the case, but a favourite talking point f the far right

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Always ends in guns why is that ? Euro people can't concentrate on the original issue. Roe vs Wade ...not 2A if you want to make a post on 2A feel free I will engage.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Always ends in guns why is that ? Euro people can't concentrate on the original issue. Roe vs Wade ...not 2A if you want to make a post on 2A feel free I will engage."
. Hint refer to guns not abortion it is 2 separate issues.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Always ends in guns why is that ? Euro people can't concentrate on the original issue. Roe vs Wade ...not 2A if you want to make a post on 2A feel free I will engage.. Hint refer to guns not abortion it is 2 separate issues."

You made it about guns, I merely mentioned gun control as one of multiple examples of how your state governments act in opposition the will of the people, then you latched on to it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

You made it about guns, I merely mentioned gun control as one of multiple examples of how your state governments act in opposition the will of the people, then you latched on to it."

No you did .. states decide here as tragic as it may seem not federal restrictions.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

[Removed by poster at 25/06/22 00:20:49]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Yes it seems sometimes the US is totally insane. I believe in 2A and the right to choose according to my state is that horrible? The right to protect myself in both aspects? I think not...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"No you did .. states decide here as tragic as it may seem not federal restrictions."

I said:

"But the People are Pro Choice, the People are Pro Gun Control, the People are Pro LGBTQIA..."

You chose to latch on to the gun element of that sentence.

And it doesn't matter who decides if they are not representing the will of the people.

[second post to fix my post, I formated it wrong]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Yes it seems sometimes the US is totally insane. I believe in 2A and the right to choose according to my state is that horrible? The right to protect myself in both aspects? I think not..."

See you are still the one fixated on the 2A.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

""No you did .. states decide here as tragic as it may seem not federal restrictions."

I said:

"But the People are Pro Choice, the People are Pro Gun Control, the People are Pro LGBTQIA..."

You chose to latch on to the gun element of that sentence.

And it doesn't matter who decides if they are not representing the will of the people.

[second post to fix my post, I formated it wrong]"
I can let go of the gun Statements but previous ignorance on other forum posts dictate otherwise. But let's get back to your analogy.. do people in the states that choose the outcomes of their destiny no matter their wrong choicces is that their decision.. on a majority vote?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

""No you did .. states decide here as tragic as it may seem not federal restrictions."

I said:

"But the People are Pro Choice, the People are Pro Gun Control, the People are Pro LGBTQIA..."

You chose to latch on to the gun element of that sentence.

And it doesn't matter who decides if they are not representing the will of the people.

[second post to fix my post, I formated it wrong] I can let go of the gun Statements but previous ignorance on other forum posts dictate otherwise. But let's get back to your analogy.. do people in the states that choose the outcomes of their destiny no matter their wrong choicces is that their decision.. on a majority vote?"

But it isnt that simple with gerrymandering, stripping of voting rights, and all the other tactics used to keep people away from the polls. You get a majority of those who were able to vote, not a majority of the people. and it has been proven they can be very different things.

Thats why States need to implement state holidays on election days and automatic voting registration. So they can actually get the vote right

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

""No you did .. states decide here as tragic as it may seem not federal restrictions."

I said:

"But the People are Pro Choice, the People are Pro Gun Control, the People are Pro LGBTQIA..."

You chose to latch on to the gun element of that sentence.

And it doesn't matter who decides if they are not representing the will of the people.

Thats why States need to implement state holidays on election days and automatic voting registration. So they can actually get the vote right"
it is a states decision is it not SCOTUS kljust thew a brick at them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

Republican states in America now have stricter abortion laws than the Taliban, who will allow abortion in the case of assault, familial assault, if the mother is dying and upto 40-120 days depending on the sect.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Thats why States need to implement state holidays on election days and automatic voting registration. So they can actually get the vote right it is a states decision is it not SCOTUS kljust thew a brick at them."

what does that have to do with what I just said?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Republican states in America now have stricter abortion laws than the Taliban, who will allow abortion in the case of assault, familial assault, if the mother is dying and upto 40-120 days depending on the sect.

"
it's a fallacy my state has a republican base with a democrat governor .. weird it's all about what people choose not what politicians. Strange concept.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

it's a fallacy my state has a republican base with a democrat governor .. weird it's all about what people choose not what politicians. Strange concept. "

Your arguments are making less and less sense it doesn't matter what is happening in YOUR state, it doesnt change the original statement.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

it's a fallacy my state has a republican base with a democrat governor .. weird it's all about what people choose not what politicians. Strange concept.

Your arguments are making less and less sense it doesn't matter what is happening in YOUR state, it doesnt change the original statement."
it does when SCOTUS kicked it back to the states individual accountability not judges.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm."

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"america needs to rethink its existence

How so ? Individual states choosing thier dumb destiny's while others choose different is a bad thing? "

This is the point. They're choosing to take away the right for women to choose what to do with their bodies.

It's removing rights from women to make choices.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

it's a fallacy my state has a republican base with a democrat governor .. weird it's all about what people choose not what politicians. Strange concept.

Your arguments are making less and less sense it doesn't matter what is happening in YOUR state, it doesnt change the original statement. it does when SCOTUS kicked it back to the states individual accountability not judges."

What does SCOTUS have to do with the Taliban and State Legislatures?

Nothing. Other than Scotus are the ones responsible for making US states more regressive than the Taliban...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

"
how so ? Enlighten me..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm."

This is taking away the right for people to choose.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

This is taking away the right for people to choose. "
exactly if the states choose to be stupid well that's on them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

This is taking away the right for people to choose. exactly if the states choose to be stupid well that's on them."
demographics come into play we have the bible belts.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

how so ? Enlighten me.."

Because they do not have undemocratic bodies like the electoral college

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

how so ? Enlighten me..

Because they do not have undemocratic bodies like the electoral college"
yet we choose that analogy it is part of our constitution... You all complain yet do not understand..why is that ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

how so ? Enlighten me..

Because they do not have undemocratic bodies like the electoral college yet we choose that analogy it is part of our constitution... You all complain yet do not understand..why is that ? "

We do understand, you have chosen less democracy and less freedom

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

how so ? Enlighten me..

Because they do not have undemocratic bodies like the electoral college yet we choose that analogy it is part of our constitution... You all complain yet do not understand..why is that ? "
we not a a democracy.. we a constitutional republic.. as others in the world perceive.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

how so ? Enlighten me..

Because they do not have undemocratic bodies like the electoral college yet we choose that analogy it is part of our constitution... You all complain yet do not understand..why is that ? we not a a democracy.. we a constitutional republic.. as others in the world perceive."

Do you think that aids your argument?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

how so ? Enlighten me..

Because they do not have undemocratic bodies like the electoral college yet we choose that analogy it is part of our constitution... You all complain yet do not understand..why is that ? we not a a democracy.. we a constitutional republic.. as others in the world perceive.

Do you think that aids your argument?"
it does individual states choose not the whole body.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

how so ? Enlighten me..

Because they do not have undemocratic bodies like the electoral college yet we choose that analogy it is part of our constitution... You all complain yet do not understand..why is that ? we not a a democracy.. we a constitutional republic.. as others in the world perceive.

Do you think that aids your argument? it does individual states choose not the whole body."

Repeating states choose for themselves doesn't make an argument, I have pointed out many times how this isn't what you say it is... your response, repeat the original statement.

Happy Sealioning. I may check back in later when I feel like marvelling at how lost the American Right are

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Now I ask .. what is the solution that euro people think that is the righteous cause.. do the people decide their fates or do rely on big government. Such a cunundrunm.

But the people do not decide in the USA.

Actually it can easily been show that the representation of the people is better in european countries.

how so ? Enlighten me..

Because they do not have undemocratic bodies like the electoral college yet we choose that analogy it is part of our constitution... You all complain yet do not understand..why is that ? we not a a democracy.. we a constitutional republic.. as others in the world perceive.

Do you think that aids your argument? it does individual states choose not the whole body.

Repeating states choose for themselves doesn't make an argument, I have pointed out many times how this isn't what you say it is... your response, repeat the original statement.

Happy Sealioning. I may check back in later when I feel like marvelling at how lost the American Right are"
. States " choosing" is exactly a argument..it's the will of the people in those specific states is it not? See I you saying he they do not matter to in the he situation.. and for the record I not "right "as your analogy perceives. Sad how you construed that standpoint.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I just don't understand the perspective of people who support these anti abortion rulings and are also against gun regulations.

Every time kids get killed by gun owning lunatics, they say that individual's rights to hold guns is more important as though the kids' lives are numbers we shouldn't care much about. But when it comes to embryos, they go all the way to take away to pass laws to take away women's abortion rights. Some level of cognitive dissonance there I must say.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I just don't understand the perspective of people who support these anti abortion rulings and are also against gun regulations.

It is one of lifes great mysteries. This love of a life yet to enter the world. But the lack of empathy for the already born and suffering.

Add to the shooting victims, the lack of social care when compared to the rest of the developed world. Which gets classified as communism in their eyes.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ackal1Couple over a year ago

Manchester

"I just don't understand the perspective of people who support these anti abortion rulings and are also against gun regulations.

This

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Did my very early education teach me wrong that the noun woman came from 'womb man'?"

Yes, your early education did indeed teach you incorrectly. The origins are back in Old English from 'wif' or 'wyf' meaning woman, and 'man' meaning person.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Did my very early education teach me wrong that the noun woman came from 'womb man'?

Yes, your early education did indeed teach you incorrectly. The origins are back in Old English from 'wif' or 'wyf' meaning woman, and 'man' meaning person."

It was a primary school in a deprived area. Thanks for the kick up the butt to get me to seek the etymological origins :D

woman (n.)

"adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eyondhornyMan over a year ago

Farnborough

So when the recent Conservative justices were hammered through in the Trump administration, during their hearings they all said under oath that Roe v Wade was settled law.

Can they not be brought to task for lying? I'm guessing as they are unelected and unsackable there is no recourse.

Maybe the Democratic party will finally get off its arse and try and fight to keep the HOR in November.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

USA (or at least a fair few of the states) you are a fucked up country (yes the UK is fucked up too but for different reasons)...

An 18 yr old boy can walk into a shop, buy a machine gun, and make a choice to take 19 children's lives! But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

So basically unwanted babies must be born into this world while wanted children can continue to be murdered. Just plain fucking weird!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"So when the recent Conservative justices were hammered through in the Trump administration, during their hearings they all said under oath that Roe v Wade was settled law.

Can they not be brought to task for lying?"

That depends on the exact wording of the questions, and the answers. They may have agreed that the matter was settled, but not been asked if they were likely to unsettle it. I doubt that any judge would say that any legal decision was set in stone and could never be changed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY."

Shouting about who owns the body is not going to persuade anyone. The discussion is about whether a foetus is a human life or not. If it is, then clearly abortion is murder and must be stopped. If it isn't, then abortion is a medical procedure that can be performed at will. The ownership of the gestation organs is not relevant to the discussion.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"america needs to rethink its existence

Is it "what the population wants"?

If so, why such high support across do many demographics for women's access to abortion provision?

Why is there such an unbalanced Supreme Court compared to the population's social attitudes?

If the justification was that abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution, does that meant that anything not mentioned in the Constitution cannot be subject to Federal Law?

Data privacy

Interracial marriage

Women's voting rights

Access to education

They should all be subject to State law depending on if they choose to make it available?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"So when the recent Conservative justices were hammered through in the Trump administration, during their hearings they all said under oath that Roe v Wade was settled law.

Can they not be brought to task for lying?

Why do you pretend that you have any legal expertise or knowledge?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view."

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations"

Maybe they are striving to have THE highest.

Just out of interest, I wonder if pro-lifer states are more for or against the death penalty. Is there a correlation?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"So when the recent Conservative justices were hammered through in the Trump administration, during their hearings they all said under oath that Roe v Wade was settled law.

Can they not be brought to task for lying?"

"That depends on the exact wording of the questions, and the answers. They may have agreed that the matter was settled, but not been asked if they were likely to unsettle it. I doubt that any judge would say that any legal decision was set in stone and could never be changed."

"Why do you pretend that you have any legal expertise or knowledge?"

Why do you pretend that I don't have any legal expertise or knowledge?

Feel free to point out any legal errors that I made in my post above. In fact, feel to point out any legal argument that I have made in this thread.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations"

Louisiana is one of the states that have automatically triggered an abortion ban. The average cost of giving birth there is $6,000. So there are people who simply can't afford it.

The US is a fucking disaster this last 6 years.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eyondhornyMan over a year ago

Farnborough

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

Louisiana is one of the states that have automatically triggered an abortion ban. The average cost of giving birth there is $6,000. So there are people who simply can't afford it.

The US is a fucking disaster this last 6 years."

-----

Exactly this, women who never intended to get pregnant with no money for the ambulance and hospital care having to resort to giving birth at home, and all the potential life threatening complications that can occur.

With mother and child at risk of dying, how is this pro life?

The fundamentalist Christian base of the Republican party will no doubt see this as acceptable collateral damage to bring thousands of other unwanted beings into the world.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

Louisiana is one of the states that have automatically triggered an abortion ban. The average cost of giving birth there is $6,000. So there are people who simply can't afford it.

The US is a fucking disaster this last 6 years.

-----

With mother and child at risk of dying, how is this pro life?

The fundamentalist Christian base of the Republican party will no doubt see this as acceptable collateral damage to bring thousands of other unwanted beings into the world. "

This ruling massively hurts the republican party in the up coming elections. That is a silver lining.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations"

There is also a link to crime.

Freakonomics: Abortion and crime revisited

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"So when the recent Conservative justices were hammered through in the Trump administration, during their hearings they all said under oath that Roe v Wade was settled law.

Can they not be brought to task for lying?

Why do you pretend that you have any legal expertise or knowledge?

Why do you pretend that I don't have any legal expertise or knowledge?

Feel free to point out any legal errors that I made in my post above. In fact, feel to point out any legal argument that I have made in this thread."

Because nobody who did would make pronouncements about the law with such certainty

In fact, very few people with genuine expertise in any field would address any topic in that way.

As somebody with minimal legal training and practise I wouldn't pretend to make a legal analysis, bit you would it seems.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

Louisiana is one of the states that have automatically triggered an abortion ban. The average cost of giving birth there is $6,000. So there are people who simply can't afford it.

The US is a fucking disaster this last 6 years.

-----

With mother and child at risk of dying, how is this pro life?

The fundamentalist Christian base of the Republican party will no doubt see this as acceptable collateral damage to bring thousands of other unwanted beings into the world.

This ruling massively hurts the republican party in the up coming elections. That is a silver lining."

Hopefully, but with the the highly partisan electoral zoning that has been made by individual States, apparently with the support of their populations

will the population be able to express this in any way electorally?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

Louisiana is one of the states that have automatically triggered an abortion ban. The average cost of giving birth there is $6,000. So there are people who simply can't afford it.

The US is a fucking disaster this last 6 years.

-----

With mother and child at risk of dying, how is this pro life?

The fundamentalist Christian base of the Republican party will no doubt see this as acceptable collateral damage to bring thousands of other unwanted beings into the world.

This ruling massively hurts the republican party in the up coming elections. That is a silver lining.

Hopefully, but with the the highly partisan electoral zoning that has been made by individual States, apparently with the support of their populations

will the population be able to express this in any way electorally?"

It going to be interesting in the other 24 states that are not heavy bible belt republican states. Some people where considering voting republican because of the current state of everything. Now with this ruling it is going to sway more into the hands of democrats in moderate states. Guess we wait until November and see.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Why do you pretend that you have any legal expertise or knowledge?"

"Why do you pretend that I don't have any legal expertise or knowledge?"

"Because nobody who did would make pronouncements about the law with such certainty"

That's an interesting way of looking at things.

But going back to my earlier question, what legal statements, correct or otherwise, have I made in this thread?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Why do you pretend that you have any legal expertise or knowledge?

Why do you pretend that I don't have any legal expertise or knowledge?

Because nobody who did would make pronouncements about the law with such certainty

That's an interesting way of looking at things.

But going back to my earlier question, what legal statements, correct or otherwise, have I made in this thread?"

Yawn.

I have no intention of taking your legal pronouncements seriously unless you can indicate some reason as to why I should.

I would avoid taking advice from anybody who provides it in the manner that you do. You have ignored or provided clearly incorrect information and analyses in other threads.

As I do not pretend legal expertise, I am not going to analyse a legal position. Why should I bother?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"But it is now going to be illegal for a woman to make a choice about her OWN body. HER. OWN. BODY.

If you want to persuade the opposition that they are wrong, you must first understand their point of view.

Not setting out to persuade anyone just highlighting the utter hypocrisy. The USA is such a weird country...

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

Louisiana is one of the states that have automatically triggered an abortion ban. The average cost of giving birth there is $6,000. So there are people who simply can't afford it.

The US is a fucking disaster this last 6 years.

-----

With mother and child at risk of dying, how is this pro life?

The fundamentalist Christian base of the Republican party will no doubt see this as acceptable collateral damage to bring thousands of other unwanted beings into the world.

This ruling massively hurts the republican party in the up coming elections. That is a silver lining.

Hopefully, but with the the highly partisan electoral zoning that has been made by individual States, apparently with the support of their populations

will the population be able to express this in any way electorally?

So, actually, I was nudging you on the premise that states create the laws that their populations want.

I'm not so convinced that they do if they've fixed the electoral game.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"You have ignored or provided clearly incorrect information and analyses in other threads."

I don't recall you posting corrections to any other thread. I'm happy to explain my thinking if you wish.

But none of that is relevant in this thread, because I haven't posted any legal opinion at all here. I'm puzzled as to why you've brought it up.

"As I do not pretend legal expertise, I am not going to analyse a legal position. Why should I bother?"

You do seem to have analysed it enough to conclude that I am wrong, but not sufficiently to explain your reasoning.

I look forward to similar posts of yours in the future.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"You have ignored or provided clearly incorrect information and analyses in other threads.

I don't recall you posting corrections to any other thread. I'm happy to explain my thinking if you wish.

But none of that is relevant in this thread, because I haven't posted any legal opinion at all here. I'm puzzled as to why you've brought it up.

As I do not pretend legal expertise, I am not going to analyse a legal position. Why should I bother?

You do seem to have analysed it enough to conclude that I am wrong, but not sufficiently to explain your reasoning.

I look forward to similar posts of yours in the future."

You have claimed legal expertise but seem unable to indicate why anyone should take your pronouncements seriously except to challenge those able to acknowledge their lack of legal knowledge to disapprove something that could be true or be complete nonsense.

So, I will not take you seriously and will continue to ignore or challenge you as I see fit.

I am currently ignoring your desire for attention

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"... except to challenge those able to acknowledge their lack of legal knowledge to disapprove something that could be true or be complete nonsense."

Careful. That sounds an awful lot like you admitting that you don't know whether any of my legal opinions are correct or not. It would be foolish to post that I have made incorrect statements if you can't back that up.

"I am currently ignoring your desire for attention

Oh good. Can we let this thread get back to Roe v Wade now?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"... except to challenge those able to acknowledge their lack of legal knowledge to disapprove something that could be true or be complete nonsense.

I am currently ignoring your desire for attention

Oh good. Can we let this thread get back to Roe v Wade now?"

Strangely, you have been unable to indicate any legal knowledge.

You have, at least, grown from asking other people to provide you with links to pasting quotes that you have found. Progress of a sort.

I cannot "prove" or "disprove" anything that I am not going to spend any time looking into.

I would love this thread to go back to Roe Vs Wade, but it would be better if you could post your opinions with more humility as someone with no expertise.

You won't, nor will you be able to resist trying to have the last word

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court"

Is an interesting look at the topic of abortion, but it doesn't address the recent ruling.

The Supreme Court didn't look at abortion, and didn't come to any conclusions as to whether abortion should be legal or not. What they did was to look at the Constitution and decide that there was no specific reason to protect abortion at the federal level. They also checked historical precedent, and other Supreme Court rulings to see if they affected things, and decided that they didn't.

The US has a big debate ahead of it as to whether abortion should be permitted, and whether it should be a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue yet.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court

Is an interesting look at the topic of abortion, but it doesn't address the recent ruling.

The US has a big debate ahead of it as to whether abortion should be permitted, and whether it should be a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue yet."

Exactly the states decide accordingly to their voter base. Not federal overwatch. Just like other issues. States have individual Constitutions according to their populace. The only way it gets overiden is by a federal mandate.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court

Is an interesting look at the topic of abortion, but it doesn't address the recent ruling.

The US has a big debate ahead of it as to whether abortion should be permitted, and whether it should be a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue yet."

Lord Sumption, probably, knows more about this than you do.

He is no fan of Roe Vs Wade or of the judiciary creating new laws instead of the legislature.

However, this law has been in use for fifty years and is now embedded. The Supreme Court, also, overturned its own precedent.

However, as ever, people will think that they're smarter than people who actually know about this stuff.

Enjoy your unqualified opinion. That is the point of the forum.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court

Is an interesting look at the topic of abortion, but it doesn't address the recent ruling.

The US has a big debate ahead of it as to whether abortion should be permitted, and whether it should be a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue yet.

Except I didn't post about the legal process here.

I posted about the emotive arguments made in the majority decision that do not correctly reflect the science.

That's what the podcast is about.

Did you not realise?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court

Is an interesting look at the topic of abortion, but it doesn't address the recent ruling.

The US has a big debate ahead of it as to whether abortion should be permitted, and whether it should be a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue yet.

Except I didn't post about the legal process here.

I posted about the emotive arguments made in the majority decision that do not correctly reflect the science.

That's what the podcast is about.

Did you not realise?"
Do states decide thier destiny according to each individual states constitution or do they need federal overwatch.. let me be clear first I believe in a woman's right to choose and I believe in 2A .the legislature of a state is better to decide than a total federal mandate. That's the difference between us and Uk politics. We decide on local state and federal levels. Not a total majority. Minority voices count too.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court

Is an interesting look at the topic of abortion, but it doesn't address the recent ruling.

The US has a big debate ahead of it as to whether abortion should be permitted, and whether it should be a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue yet.

Except I didn't post about the legal process here.

I posted about the emotive arguments made in the majority decision that do not correctly reflect the science.

That's what the podcast is about.

Did you not realise? Do states decide thier destiny according to each individual states constitution or do they need federal overwatch.. let me be clear first I believe in a woman's right to choose and I believe in 2A .the legislature of a state is better to decide than a total federal mandate. That's the difference between us and Uk politics. We decide on local state and federal levels. Not a total majority. Minority voices count too."

No idea. Were they not "deciding their destiny" until now?

Did some states not decide that it was "their destiny" to succeed from the USA?

Did some states not decide that it was the "destiny" of black people to be sl@ves and if not sl@ves be segregated and if not segregated not be married?

Why would it be an individual state's "destiny" to decide on how much it pollutes in isolation to those of the rest of the nation? Is air and water also limited to individual state borders?

Why would you pretend that this is purely about the law? The Republican party has spent decades and millions of dollars to install conservative Chief Justices in order to change long settled rulings. Your judiciary has become highly politicised. I believe that is unfortunate.

Minority voices do not count in overtly gerrymandered districts decided upon by state legislatures.

There is nothing to stop governments having regard for minorities, but in recent years they have chosen not to.

Did you not realise that the podcast was not about the legal judgement but the use of language in the legal opinion not aligning with the science? Did you listen to it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court

Is an interesting look at the topic of abortion, but it doesn't address the recent ruling.

The US has a big debate ahead of it as to whether abortion should be permitted, and whether it should be a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue yet.

Except I didn't post about the legal process here.

I posted about the emotive arguments made in the majority decision that do not correctly reflect the science.

That's what the podcast is about.

No idea. Were they not "deciding their destiny" until now?

Did some states not decide that it was "their destiny" to succeed from the USA?

Did some states not decide that it was the "destiny" of black people to be sl@ves and if not sl@ves be segregated and if not segregated not be married?

Why would it be an individual state's "destiny" to decide on how much it pollutes in isolation to those of the rest of the nation? Is air and water also limited to individual state borders?

Minority voices do not count in overtly gerrymandered districts decided upon by state legislatures.

There is nothing to stop governments having regard for minorities, but in recent years they have chosen not to.

Did you not realise that the podcast was not about the legal judgement but the use of language in the legal opinion not aligning with the science? Did you listen to it?"

Is it not a legislative issue and not a judicial issue according to the constitution yes or no? Federal telling states compared to states deciding? It is a faulty law to begin with according to our constitution. You do realize we are not a true democracy as everyone thinks we are.We are a constitutional republic are we not?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Is a legislative issue

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Lord Sumption, probably, knows more about this than you do.

He is no fan of Roe Vs Wade or of the judiciary creating new laws instead of the legislature."

If Lord Sumption is against Roe v Wade, and against the legislature creating new laws, then it sounds like he and I would get on well. The recent decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organisation strikes down Roe v Wade, and removes a piece of judicial overreach.

But Lord Suption's opinions on Roe v Wade are not terribly relevant since he was a member of the UK Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court that recently changed that precedent.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

[Removed by poster at 02/07/22 08:50:13]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Except I didn't post about the legal process here.

I posted about the emotive arguments made in the majority decision that do not correctly reflect the science."

There were no emotive arguments made in the majority section of the decision. Yes, they quoted the wording of some of the state laws, but they used the legal language.

The only appeals to emotion made in the judgement were in the dissenting section, where the dissenters argue that removing the constitutional protection for abortion will result in women suffering.

More importantly, the decision was made on legal and constitutional grounds, not on what abortion entails. It doesn't matter whether the statements made about abortion were emotional, or incorrect, because the judges didn't consider whether abortion should be legal.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Lord Sumption, probably, knows more about this than you do.

He is no fan of Roe Vs Wade or of the judiciary creating new laws instead of the legislature.

But Lord Suption's opinions on Roe v Wade are not terribly relevant since he was a member of the UK Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court that recently changed that precedent."

Your opinions are even less relevant.

Either you accept his opinion on how it effects previous judgements and future precedent after being a fundamental part of the law for 50 years or do not.

If you believe that your reading of it is better informed than a former Justice of the UK Supreme Court, then good for you.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Interesting podcast on this:

Science Vs

Abortion: The science and the Supreme Court

Is an interesting look at the topic of abortion, but it doesn't address the recent ruling.

The US has a big debate ahead of it as to whether abortion should be permitted, and whether it should be a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue yet.

Except I didn't post about the legal process here.

I posted about the emotive arguments made in the majority decision that do not correctly reflect the science.

That's what the podcast is about.

No idea. Were they not "deciding their destiny" until now?

Did some states not decide that it was "their destiny" to succeed from the USA?

Did some states not decide that it was the "destiny" of black people to be sl@ves and if not sl@ves be segregated and if not segregated not be married?

Why would it be an individual state's "destiny" to decide on how much it pollutes in isolation to those of the rest of the nation? Is air and water also limited to individual state borders?

Minority voices do not count in overtly gerrymandered districts decided upon by state legislatures.

There is nothing to stop governments having regard for minorities, but in recent years they have chosen not to.

Did you not realise that the podcast was not about the legal judgement but the use of language in the legal opinion not aligning with the science? Did you listen to it?

It appears that you did not listen to the podcast and are avoiding the points that I raised. You want to discuss something else.

Is that correct?

I don't know if it is a decision based on the US Constitution. Neither do you.

That's why you have a Supreme Court.

I do understand the logic of the decision as explained, and also understand the problems to the legal system associated with the Supreme Court choosing to overturn its own precedent and judgements and change 50 years of settled law. Also, the risk to the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court as it could certainly now be viewed as making partisan political decisions.

Do you understand the legal problems that reversing this decision raise as well as you suggest you understand the Constitution? Could you talk through the balance?

I'm not testing you, I'm just trying to understand your logic about this better.

I note that you skipped the inconvenient points on sl@very, segregation, interracial marriage and civil war.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Except I didn't post about the legal process here.

I posted about the emotive arguments made in the majority decision that do not correctly reflect the science.

There were no emotive arguments made in the majority section of the decision. Yes, they quoted the wording of some of the state laws, but they used the legal language.

The only appeals to emotion made in the judgement were in the dissenting section, where the dissenters argue that removing the constitutional protection for abortion will result in women suffering.

Perhaps you did not understand the podcast then?

Quoting something emotive from state law and then claiming that it is not emotive because it is a quote is an interesting view.

Again, I'm not discussing the legal decision as I am no expert in this field as you claim to be. I will relate what I understand from people who do understand the law rather than claim knowledge that I do not have.

My post, which you chose to respond to, was about how areas of the majority judgement conflicted the actual science and data. No more.

You have chosen to discuss something else.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

Another interesting podcast indicating the scale how many women this judgement will effect in the US

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct3k4t?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Either you accept his opinion on how it effects previous judgements and future precedent after being a fundamental part of the law for 50 years or do not."

I do not know Lord Sumption's opinion on how Dobbs will affect future precedent, as no one has pointed me to his thoughts on the matter.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Either you accept his opinion on how it effects previous judgements and future precedent after being a fundamental part of the law for 50 years or do not.

I do not know Lord Sumption's opinion on how Dobbs will affect future precedent, as no one has pointed me to his thoughts on the matter."

You didn't know his opinion yet you responded to the comment.

It was on Newsnight last night. Can't help you any further.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Quoting something emotive from state law and then claiming that it is not emotive because it is a quote is an interesting view."

It would be an interesting view, had I claimed that. Instead I said that the language was not emotive.

But let's not bicker about it, why don't you just post some of the words used in the majority decision, and we can all see whether they are emotive or not.

"I will relate what I understand from people who do understand the law rather than claim knowledge that I do not have."

I'm sure that you will agree that the judges of the US Supreme Court are people that understand the law, and I'm glad to hear that you accept the majority view that Roe v Wade was bad law.

"My post, which you chose to respond to, was about how areas of the majority judgement conflicted the actual science and data. No more.

You have chosen to discuss something else."

Well you can easily bring me back to your point by posting the part of the judgement that conflicted with actual science. Then we can all see which of us is mistaken, and which doesn't know what he is talking about.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Is it not a legislative issue and not a judicial issue according to the constitution yes or no? Federal telling states compared to states deciding?"

The latest polls show that 60-85% of Americans are against blanket restrictions on abortion (the number varies according to the exact wording of the question). They also show that the vast majority say that this issue will be important to them in the next elections.

I'm hopeful that the population of the US will make their feelings known in the 2024 cycle, and that there will be some significant changes in the makeup of both state and federal legislature. Now is the time for Americans to start telling their representatives that, unless abortion bans are repealed, their votes will be going elsewhere.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"Is it not a legislative issue and not a judicial issue according to the constitution yes or no? Federal telling states compared to states deciding?

Hopefully.

In the meantime a lot of people's lives will be ruined.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Is it not a legislative issue and not a judicial issue according to the constitution yes or no? Federal telling states compared to states deciding?

Hopefully.

In the meantime a lot of people's lives will be ruined. "

Vote state legislature out if you don't agree with their positions.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I understand the Supreme Court’s stance as they see abortion as a state issue rather than federal but I’m intrigued to see what impact this will have in future elections. You can see some states completely banning it and others allowing abortion up to within a few weeks of birth. I’m glad the UK has some limitations on abortion (24 weeks) unless their are medical concerns late term. I wouldn’t suggest the US adopts our policy though, that will be for state legislatures to decide and the American public to vote on 2024.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I understand the Supreme Court’s stance as they see abortion as a state issue rather than federal but I’m intrigued to see what impact this will have in future elections. You can see some states completely banning it and others allowing abortion up to within a few weeks of birth. I’m glad the UK has some limitations on abortion (24 weeks) unless their are medical concerns late term. I wouldn’t suggest the US adopts our policy though, that will be for state legislatures to decide and the American public to vote on 2024."

Midterms are this year in November. The number 1 thing on people's minds is the economy. Texas picked up to seats and few other states picked up more seats in the house because of the census. Our state for instance is republican held legislature with a democrat governor. The governor's term is over and the major issue is the economy. It effects everyone..There is a influx of people switching parties from democrat to republican and independent voters most likely to vote Republican. Guess we have to wait until November.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Quoting something emotive from state law and then claiming that it is not emotive because it is a quote is an interesting view.

It would be an interesting view, had I claimed that. Instead I said that the language was not emotive.

But let's not bicker about it, why don't you just post some of the words used in the majority decision, and we can all see whether they are emotive or not.

I will relate what I understand from people who do understand the law rather than claim knowledge that I do not have.

I'm sure that you will agree that the judges of the US Supreme Court are people that understand the law, and I'm glad to hear that you accept the majority view that Roe v Wade was bad law.

My post, which you chose to respond to, was about how areas of the majority judgement conflicted the actual science and data. No more.

You have chosen to discuss something else.

You responded to my post which referenced the position of Lord Sumption directly.

Perhaps you didn't understand what was written?

I do agree that the politically appointed judges of the current US Supreme Court do interpret the law as they see fit. It just happens to differ substantially from 50 years of previous judges. Why is that?

Of course I "accept" their decision on it. I am free to question the consequences and the contradiction of the science referenced in the majority judgement.

As you listened to the podcast you are able to understand the scientifically incorrect, emotive comments referred to. Why not listen again?

You have no legal training, so your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. Correct?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Is it not a legislative issue and not a judicial issue according to the constitution yes or no? Federal telling states compared to states deciding?

Hopefully.

In the meantime a lot of people's lives will be ruined.

Vote state legislature out if you don't agree with their positions."

Difficult with voter suppression and partisan voting maps in place.

Another step about to be sent back to be within the domain of State not judicial control.

The party in power decides what the election rules are.

Hmmm.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"You responded to my post which referenced the position of Lord Sumption directly."

The only post you have made that directly addressed Lord Sumption's views was when you said "He is no fan of Roe Vs Wade or of the judiciary creating new laws instead of the legislature". In my follow-up post I agreed with Lord Sumption's opinion. What makes you think I haven't understood it?

"I am free to question the consequences and the contradiction of the science referenced in the majority judgement."

There is no contradiction of science referenced in the majority judgement. You could win this argument easily by simply quoting it, and making me look like a fool. But you won't, because it's not there.

"As you listened to the podcast you are able to understand the scientifically incorrect, emotive comments referred to. Why not listen again?"

I didn't listen to the podcast, because the woman's voice was too annoying. Instead I read the transcript, which is much easier to take in, and includes all the references to the source documents, so that their claims can be checked. Why don't you take a look and see what their source material was.

"You have no legal training, so your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's."

You have stated on other threads that you have only minimal legal training. I'm not sure why you think that you are qualified to judge the level of ability of others.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"I’m intrigued to see what impact this will have in future elections. You can see some states completely banning it ..."

I can't see any state maintaining a complete ban on abortion after the mid-terms. I'm expecting that there will be quite a shake-up of the legislature in some states.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"The number 1 thing on people's minds is the economy."

I can appreciate that, the economy is certainly a more pressing problem for most people. Having said that, I still think that each representative is going to be forced by the media to state an absolute position on the abortion issue. I'm thinking that these statements will get more prominence in the news bulletins than whatever their economic plans might be.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The number 1 thing on people's minds is the economy.

If democrats make roe their main agenda they are doomed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The number 1 thing on people's minds is the economy.

If democrats make roe their main agenda they are doomed."

Never before in US politics has an issue been so overwhelmingly favoured than a Woman's Right to Choose, almost every poll EVER done has shown a staggering amount of support for Pro-Choice and Reproductive rights... if you have been lead to believe otherwise, you may want to widen your net on where you catch your news.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The number 1 thing on people's minds is the economy.

If democrats make roe their main agenda they are doomed.

Ummm the polls say economy over

roe I live here. In a swing state. Like I said if the " democrats " make that their main agenda they will be doomed. I get local and state news your point is ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Right to a abortion or being able to afford fuels, housing and food. Hmmm pretty sure economy is a bigger issue.Not roe.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?"

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war."

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

"
lol not one person at my work or in my social life in 2 red states are screaming civil war and the majority of those people we associate with both democrat and republican. Own guns. It's a media ploy to cause disdain we not stupid as other countries think we are. Like I said either side "right "," left" extremists the are few. Try local news outlets compared to mainstream. They mainstream just competing for audience dominance.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The number 1 thing on people's minds is the economy.

If democrats make roe their main agenda they are doomed.

Ummm the polls say economy over

roe I live here. In a swing state. Like I said if the " democrats " make that their main agenda they will be doomed. I get local and state news your point is ? "

My point is I think you are wrong if you think reproductive rights will be a loser for the democrats.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"lol not one person at my work or in my social life in 2 red states are screaming civil war and the majority of those people we associate with both democrat and republican. Own guns. It's a media ploy to cause disdain we not stupid as other countries think we are. Like I said either side "right "," left" extremists the are few. Try local news outlets compared to mainstream. They mainstream just competing for audience dominance. "

The thing about Authoritarian Extreme Right Wing dictatorships, is most people don't realise they are there until it is too late. It is naive and pure american exceptionalism to think the USA is immune to that.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"You responded to my post which referenced the position of Lord Sumption directly.

I am free to question the consequences and the contradiction of the science referenced in the majority judgement.

As you listened to the podcast you are able to understand the scientifically incorrect, emotive comments referred to. Why not listen again?

You have no legal training, so your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

You have stated on other threads that you have only minimal legal training. I'm not sure why you think that you are qualified to judge the level of ability of others."

So you are arguing about a podcast that you haven't listened to and know nothing about?

You're on your own. Have fun

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war."

Yet they stormed your legislature and threatened your lawmakers in an attempt to overturn the result of a general election.

They chose to believe a transparent lie about election fraud.

The very heart of your democracy was attacked by people claiming to be protecting it.

You may be much closer to the edge than you believe.

Hopefully not, but why so complacent?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Yet they stormed your legislature and threatened your lawmakers in an attempt to overturn the result of a general election.

They chose to believe a transparent lie about election fraud.

The very heart of your democracy was attacked by people claiming to be protecting it.

You may be much closer to the edge than you believe.

Hopefully not, but why so complacent?"

Did they do see succeed? No they did not.. what you think would of happened if they did ? You that blind to facts that they could of easily been taken down if they tried to hold the house. Surely you not that ignorant... Extremists on both sides playing childish games.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Yet they stormed your legislature and threatened your lawmakers in an attempt to overturn the result of a general election.

They chose to believe a transparent lie about election fraud.

The very heart of your democracy was attacked by people claiming to be protecting it.

You may be much closer to the edge than you believe.

Hopefully not, but why so complacent?

Again there are more moderate people then what your perception sees on the News. I laugh sometimes wondering how some of you can be so obsessed with left and right yet ignore the middle. Yet I speak I am wrong..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

".Ummm the polls say economy over roe I live here. In a swing state. Like I said if the " democrats " make that their main agenda they will be doomed."

Is it your belief that people will vote for the Republicans to improve the economy?

If so, I think you might be mistaken. There are plenty of Americans that think the state of the economy is down to global issues, not just Biden's inept policy handling. If I had a vote in the US, I really wouldn't know which way to vote if I wanted to improve the economy. I'd certainly know which way to vote on women's rights though.

I shall be following the polls in the lead up to November.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Yet they stormed your legislature and threatened your lawmakers in an attempt to overturn the result of a general election.

They chose to believe a transparent lie about election fraud.

The very heart of your democracy was attacked by people claiming to be protecting it.

You may be much closer to the edge than you believe.

Hopefully not, but why so complacent?

You rather missed the point. Deliberately or accidentally.

The "minority" is not as small as you seem to imagine if a majority of Republican voters believe an unambiguous lie about election fraud and a sufficient number choose to take violent action.

Your democracy is in trouble if so many of your population now doubt the electoral legitimacy of your government.

The irony is even greater if it is the Republican party through state legislators is suppressing the votes of their opponents and looking to remove any judicial oversight of this behaviour.

Do you disagree?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *iman2100Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"The Great Experiment Failed no it didn't we have more leeway on the personal choices.

Literally SCOTUS kicked roe vs Wade back to each individual state for them to decide. So as that decision was bad in some sense . It just gives other empowerment. "

The decision to kick it back to the individual states would not be too much of a problem, if some of those right wing, ultra religious, states did not seek to make an individual going out of their state for an abortion a crime in their state. It is like a resident of Hawaii being convicted of driving at 85, in Texas, when they returned to Hawaii because on the island the limit is 55.

I do however understand that, in a country where gun owners have more rights than women. Where school mass shootings are commonplace. There is a need to keep up the birth rate because otherwise the voting gun owners would run out of targets.

The complexity of policing these laws will however be massive. What if a woman is pregnant and naturally aborts or has an accident and aborts? Will she be forced to undergo an intrusive medical examination to prove it was natural? Is she guilty until proven innocent?

Will the people happily accept the police hounding couples who suffer from multiple miscarriages? What if a neighbour or work colleague thought a woman was pregnant (when she was not) and then realised she is no longer "pregnant"? Will she report that to the police? How do you prove you were not pregnant when you were not pregnant?

If a 1 day old fertilised egg is protected, why not sperm and ova? Is not the next step to make masturbation illegal? Celibacy illegal? Sterilisation illegal? Homosexuality illegal (again)?

The saddest part of all this is the USA system of selection of SCOTUS has just turned what should be an oasis of balance and reason into another arm of the right wing of the Republican party. Democracy in the USA is now on life support.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *iman2100Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Yet they stormed your legislature and threatened your lawmakers in an attempt to overturn the result of a general election.

They chose to believe a transparent lie about election fraud.

The very heart of your democracy was attacked by people claiming to be protecting it.

You may be much closer to the edge than you believe.

Hopefully not, but why so complacent?

My daughter lives in Texas and she says there are many people in the middle there. The problem is the far right is the loudest and most politically active so they get their own way.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

lol not one person at my work or in my social life in 2 red states are screaming civil war and the majority of those people we associate with both democrat and republican. Own guns. It's a media ploy to cause disdain we not stupid as other countries think we are. Like I said either side "right "," left" extremists the are few. Try local news outlets compared to mainstream. They mainstream just competing for audience dominance. "

The biggest conflicts don’t happen because there was a plan, usually they happen by mistake.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

The biggest conflicts don’t happen because there was a plan, usually they happen by mistake."
The truth is the first casualty of any conflict.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

The biggest conflicts don’t happen because there was a plan, usually they happen by mistake. The truth is the first casualty of any conflict."

Is this a conflict?

If so, then you have answered the question as to what is happening in the USA.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

The biggest conflicts don’t happen because there was a plan, usually they happen by mistake. The truth is the first casualty of any conflict.

Is this a conflict?

If so, then you have answered the question as to what is happening in the USA."

It is but whom am I to tell other states that they are wrong ? When the constituents agree? Like a presidential election when other states disagree it's still has to be accepted.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

The biggest conflicts don’t happen because there was a plan, usually they happen by mistake. The truth is the first casualty of any conflict.

Is this a conflict?

If so, then you have answered the question as to what is happening in the USA.

It is but whom am I to tell other states that they are wrong ? When the constituents agree? Like a presidential election when other states disagree it's still has to be accepted."

The constituents don't agree. Partisan zoning and voter suppression rules see to that.

You're well aware of that and the fact that the next push will be for states to mark their own homework on how fair their election processes are.

It seems that some states had to work very hard to return the votes as they were actually cast in the face of a great deal of intimidation.

Just like the Vice President had to.

It was marginal and on a knife edge. Those few Republicans with integrity won't be there the next time around.

BoJo culled any Tories with those views in 2019, and here we are...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The constituents don't agree. Partisan zoning and voter suppression rules see to that.

You're well aware of that and the fact that the next push will be for states to mark their own homework on how fair their election processes are.

It seems that some states had to work very hard to return the votes as they were actually cast in the face of a great deal of intimidation.

Just like the Vice President had to.

It was marginal and on a knife edge. Those few Republicans with integrity won't be there the next time around.

BoJo culled any Tories with those views in 2019, and here we are..."

Recent poll on the overturning had the majority (58% according to gallup) disapprove of the decision to overturn. 35% approved, leaving 7% unanswered

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"The constituents don't agree. Partisan zoning and voter suppression rules see to that.

You're well aware of that and the fact that the next push will be for states to mark their own homework on how fair their election processes are.

It seems that some states had to work very hard to return the votes as they were actually cast in the face of a great deal of intimidation.

Just like the Vice President had to.

It was marginal and on a knife edge. Those few Republicans with integrity won't be there the next time around.

BoJo culled any Tories with those views in 2019, and here we are...

Recent poll on the overturning had the majority (58% according to gallup) disapprove of the decision to overturn. 35% approved, leaving 7% unanswered

"
. And again here you are quoting stats.. you do realize there is a general election coming up.. states voting. SMH stats don't mean anything until after the vote. SMH.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"The constituents don't agree. Partisan zoning and voter suppression rules see to that.

You're well aware of that and the fact that the next push will be for states to mark their own homework on how fair their election processes are.

It seems that some states had to work very hard to return the votes as they were actually cast in the face of a great deal of intimidation.

Just like the Vice President had to.

It was marginal and on a knife edge. Those few Republicans with integrity won't be there the next time around.

BoJo culled any Tories with those views in 2019, and here we are...

Recent poll on the overturning had the majority (58% according to gallup) disapprove of the decision to overturn. 35% approved, leaving 7% unanswered

. And again here you are quoting stats.. you do realize there is a general election coming up.. states voting. SMH stats don't mean anything until after the vote. SMH."

Then ignore it, simples.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

The biggest conflicts don’t happen because there was a plan, usually they happen by mistake. The truth is the first casualty of any conflict."

Well that ship has sailed and is well over the horizon, so onto the conflict part, Civil War 2 - The Confederates Strike Back.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"States rights vs Federal law.

Its just the American Civil war all over again, Many American people are arming themselves, raising militia’s. I don’t think it can be really contained now. America is clearly a divided house.

Question is who will come on top after Civil War 2?

And will the UK support or stay out?

No we not quit scaremongering. The extremists are few. Lol try local news in whatever state you choose. No one is screaming civil war.

Sadly it’s the extremists who are in control now, when the majority are being dictated to the minority.

Its not project fear, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

When mid terms come, it’s another step to war. Remember it took years before Americans fought each another. Conditions are not ideal now, but the storm clouds are gathering.

Take it from us, we predicted brexit would be shitshow, so don’t be unprepared.

The biggest conflicts don’t happen because there was a plan, usually they happen by mistake. The truth is the first casualty of any conflict.

Well that ship has sailed and is well over the horizon, so onto the conflict part, Civil War 2 - The Confederates Strike Back."

Iam surprised it didn't happen already.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Well that ship has sailed and is well over the horizon, so onto the conflict part, Civil War 2 - The Confederates Strike Back."

"I am surprised it didn't happen already."

Me too. I thought that there would be a lot more protesting going on, and more posturing by both sides.

Mind you, that might have happened and the UK media just haven't reported it. They have had other things on their mind recently.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Well that ship has sailed and is well over the horizon, so onto the conflict part, Civil War 2 - The Confederates Strike Back.

I am surprised it didn't happen already.

Me too. I thought that there would be a lot more protesting going on, and more posturing by both sides.

Mind you, that might have happened and the UK media just haven't reported it. They have had other things on their mind recently."

Nothing too violent yet. Around September and October right before the elections the herds from both extreme sides should make their debut.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Op should name this post Roe vs Wade 2 : Judgement day

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Op should name this post Roe vs Wade 2 : Judgement day"

I would have gone with ...

Roe Vs Wade 2: Authoritarian Boogaloo

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Op should name this post Roe vs Wade 2 : Judgement day

I would have gone with ...

Roe Vs Wade 2: Authoritarian Boogaloo"

States choose how is that a authoritarian in your eyes ? States have to believe in a the presidential election do they not ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Op should name this post Roe vs Wade 2 : Judgement day

I would have gone with ...

Roe Vs Wade 2: Authoritarian Boogaloo

States choose how is that a authoritarian in your eyes ? States have to believe in a the presidential election do they not ? "

Not according to Texas, their State GOP manifesto clearly states that they do not accept Biden winning.

They are also working on plans to secede.

Doesn't really fit your statement does it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 11/07/22 01:23:12]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"Op should name this post Roe vs Wade 2 : Judgement day

I would have gone with ...

Roe Vs Wade 2: Authoritarian Boogaloo

States choose how is that a authoritarian in your eyes ? States have to believe in a the presidential election do they not ?

Not according to Texas, their State GOP manifesto clearly states that they do not accept Biden winning.

They are also working on plans to secede.

Doesn't really fit your statement does it? yet he sitting in office. Clearly you not that ignorant. Did the people on a federal level say otherwise?"

Shifting Goalposts

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

No I not show me in the constitution that's says you have a legal right to a abortion? You can go thru all 50 states that have their own constitutional aspects. 0 on all about that right . So in that aspect "legally" isn't it more prudent to kick that back to the states to decide? You want people to believe one law but not others .laws differentiate from state to state in certain aspects do they not ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"No I not show me in the constitution that's says you have a legal right to a abortion? You can go thru all 50 states that have their own constitutional aspects. 0 on all about that right . So in that aspect "legally" isn't it more prudent to kick that back to the states to decide? You want people to believe one law but not others .laws differentiate from state to state in certain aspects do they not ?"

You know what else doesnt appear in the constitution?

-Women

-Guns

-Congressional Districts

-The electoral college

-Executive Order

-Executive Privilege

-Freedom of Expression

-God

-Innocent until proven guilty

-It's a free country

-Jury of Peers

-Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

-Marriage

-No Taxation without representation

-Political parties

-Primary Elections

-The right to Privacy

-The Right to travel

-The right to vote

Among other things.

The constitution is archaic, even Jefferson said it should be rewritten each generation so that it stayed relevant.

If it wasn't such a tragically out of date and lacking document it would not have needed 27 amendments over time.

Claiming the constitution as an argument is the last resort for anyone who cannot put forth a better argument.

[this has been an opinion]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There are no such thing as human rights. People only have whatever rights those in power say they can have. George Carlin referred to them as "human privileges" because they can be taken away just as easily as they are given.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"There are no such thing as human rights. People only have whatever rights those in power say they can have. George Carlin referred to them as "human privileges" because they can be taken away just as easily as they are given."

Yeah the full quote is:

"Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges"

Given Carlin's act is was done as an anti-establishment shot at government overreach and the rise of the evangelical republican right Cause he really hated that.

He was also pro-choice.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And it’s ROE

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"And it’s ROE"
misnomer seems everyone else got it except you

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

"And it’s ROE misnomer seems everyone else got it except you

DARVO in a sentence

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

This will be an issue for the Americans to decide. As a Brit, I haven’t the front to criticise the American system to an American. I am glad that we have abortion rights up to 24 weeks (unless the mother is in mortal danger beyond 24 weeks)

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"This will be an issue for the Americans to decide. As a Brit, I haven’t the front to criticise the American system to an American. I am glad that we have abortion rights up to 24 weeks (unless the mother is in mortal danger beyond 24 weeks)"

We a constitutional republic not a true democracy as everyone thinks. Federal judicial decisions override states. SCOTUS interpretation of the original constitution basically said no it's up the the states to decide. According to their constituents. The original roe vs Wade was flawed on that aspect. Legally.. not morally.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

so you are saying that in their confirmation hearings 4 of the SCOTUS judges committed perjury when they said Roe Vs Wade was settled law and shouldn't be overturned??

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

so you are saying that in their confirmation hearings 4 of the SCOTUS judges committed perjury when they said Roe Vs Wade was settled law and shouldn't be overturned??"
did they interpret the constitutional aspect of it yes or no ? To he kicked it back to the states to decide.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

They

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *heNerdyFembyWoman over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

so you are saying that in their confirmation hearings 4 of the SCOTUS judges committed perjury when they said Roe Vs Wade was settled law and shouldn't be overturned?? did they interpret the constitutional aspect of it yes or no ? To he kicked it back to the states to decide. "

That is certainly the answer to A question, just not my question.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *iman2100Man over a year ago

Glasgow

An often used criticism of Islam by Christians is the former religion's demand for blind obedience to rules written 1,400 years ago.

Even the founding fathers expected the constitution to be updated on a regular basis to properly reflect the development of the USA.

It seems therefore somewhat disingenuous for the SCOTUS to pass judgement that something was errounously decided because it is not in the constitution when they lay down prescient almost daily on matters where the individual members do not have strong personal beliefs.

On the abortion issue however several members of scotus clearly voted their personal beliefs on Roe vs Wade issue which must call into question their right to be the balanced arbiters of the Laws of the USA.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

An often used criticism of Islam by Christians is the former religion's demand for blind obedience to rules written 1,400 years ago.

Even the founding fathers expected the constitution to be updated on a regular basis to properly reflect the development of the USA.

Yet on presidence you want people to believe in the federal election for president according to that document. It was flawed. I am a independent I believe in woman's rights and I believe in 2A we exist. It's like telling Scotland they don't have the right to autonomy is it not ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *iman2100Man over a year ago

Glasgow

An often used criticism of Islam by Christians is the former religion's demand for blind obedience to rules written 1,400 years ago.

Even the founding fathers expected the constitution to be updated on a regular basis to properly reflect the development of the USA.

Do you believe the 2020 election was flawed? The most scrutinised election in US history? Or is it the Constitution election process?

The UK does not have a written constitution. As part of the UK for 419 years, Scotland needs the approval of the UK government to hold a legally enforceable referendum on independence.

One was agreed and held in 2014 on the basis it was a once in a lifetime plebiscite; the Scottish people voted to stay in the Union.

Because things changed, as they always do in politics, the the devolved government in Scotland controlled by the Scottish National Party, who's primary raison d'etre is Independence, want another referendum. The UK government has said no at this time.

Independence referenda are costly, time consuming, socially divisive and economically damaging. Whilst the SNP may want to hold one annually until they get their own way it does not appear to be in the best interests of Scotland.

For our USA friends; Scottish independance is the equivalent of Minisota wanting to be a separate country.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"so you are saying that in their confirmation hearings 4 of the SCOTUS judges committed perjury when they said Roe Vs Wade was settled law and shouldn't be overturned??"

None of them said that Roe v Wade shouldn't be overturned. Amy Coney Barrett was specifically asked if she thought that Roe was a super-precedent (meaning that it couldn't be overturned) and she said that it wasn't.

But don't take my word for it. The hearings are all on YouTube, go and watch them and see what the judges actually said

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"It seems therefore somewhat disingenuous for the SCOTUS to pass judgement that something was errounously decided because it is not in the constitution when they lay down prescient almost daily on matters where the individual members do not have strong personal beliefs.

You should go and look at the original decision in Roe v Wade. The judges decided that the right to abortion was conferred by the 14th Amendment, which granted a right to privacy. They didn't explain how that right related to abortion.

Here's a link to the 14th Amendment text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv. Go read that and see if you can find any basis for a right to privacy, and then if that can be extended to abortion. The judges quoted the 'due process' part of section 1 (the rest of the sections are not relevant).

The recent judgement in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is well reasoned and based purely on constitutional grounds. I don't like the fact that it removes protection for abortion, but it is at least legally correct.

If there's any SCOTUS decision that isn't properly argued and appears to be entirely based on the judges personal beliefs, it's the original decision in Roe

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"For our USA friends; Scottish independance is the equivalent of Minisota wanting to be a separate country. "

If you need to explain this to an American, just say the word 'secession'. They all know what that means.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *iman2100Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"For our USA friends; Scottish independance is the equivalent of Minisota wanting to be a separate country.

If you need to explain this to an American, just say the word 'secession'. They all know what that means."

Agreed. The attempted seccession of the Southern states led to the American Civil War. Not sure if the 55 million English will invade Scotland and battle the 5.5 million Scots.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ackal1Couple over a year ago

Manchester

Just my view and judging by recently suggested bills the U.K. may be following suit but the politicising of the judiciary and law enforcement in the US is fundamentally hindering the law as it should be interpreted and enforced.

To have sheriffs and judges elected has proven

to be an issue in the recent masa shooting. Keeping a close circle to protect political allies is disgraceful but blatantly happening. The local council have been shamed into action on this.

The U.K. are starting with commissioners who are elected and it won’t be long before politically bias candidates are elected.

Raab has claimed that a politician should have the last say in cases such as Baby P . No they bloody well shouldn’t . What if it was an opposing politically bias prisoner ?

Anyway I’m drifting but the fact that politically loyal judges are appointed over independent judges reflects badly on any country’s judiciary. As a result you have rulings such as this where the inbuilt bias is overriding both the rights of individuals and the good honest quality of lawmaking.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"If you need to explain this to an American, just say the word 'secession'. They all know what that means."

"Agreed. The attempted seccession of the Southern states led to the American Civil War."

I was thinking more of the regular calls from Texas and California to secede, but your example works too.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic