Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Message
Author
Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#41 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 12:28 am

@Worcej: You have a female wife or partner, yes?

Let's imagine she is raped and gets pregnant.

Now let's imagine she's traumatised by this and doesn't want to have the baby.

Would you support her wish to have an abortion? Or would you force her to have the baby?

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#42 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 12:30 am

Randomizer wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:16 am
Idaho wants to make it that a rapist's family can sue if the victim gets an abortion.

Meanwhile the laws ending or restricting abortion violate the 13th amendment of the US Constitution:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5 ... amendment/

The new laws forces pregnant women to be involuntary slaves that no longer have free will over the use of their own bodies. Of course rich people can afford to go to other countries that allow abortion. But these new laws end equal rights where the poorer people can't.
@Worcej: Show me that this evil shit is not evil. This is fucking vile and you are supporting it.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#43 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 12:31 am

This is a battle of right vs wrong and I've picked a fucking side.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#44 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 12:46 am

worcej wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 6:42 pm
Reality is though that these legislators are representing the will of their constituents.
If some of those constituents think that the primary purpose of a woman is to be a breeding vessel as God commands, they can Fuck. Off. Fuck those people. Their medieval views should be disregarded.

If a majority of people in your backward state voted to kill all the jews and the gays, would you cheer for that to happen? Yes or fucking no?

worcej
Posts: 8770
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:39 am
Location: Washington
Karma: 4828

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#45 Post by worcej » Fri May 13, 2022 1:03 am

Randomizer wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:16 am
Idaho wants to make it that a rapist's family can sue if the victim gets an abortion.

Meanwhile the laws ending or restricting abortion violate the 13th amendment of the US Constitution:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5 ... amendment/

The new laws forces pregnant women to be involuntary slaves that no longer have free will over the use of their own bodies. Of course rich people can afford to go to other countries that allow abortion. But these new laws end equal rights where the poorer people can't.
This ones a stretch and I would think it would've been used in the original arguments during Roe if it made legal sense.

worcej
Posts: 8770
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:39 am
Location: Washington
Karma: 4828

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#46 Post by worcej » Fri May 13, 2022 1:04 am

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:28 am
@Worcej: You have a female wife or partner, yes?

Let's imagine she is raped and gets pregnant.

Now let's imagine she's traumatised by this and doesn't want to have the baby.

Would you support her wish to have an abortion? Or would you force her to have the baby?
I already said I was pro-choice Jamie, so you should already know what my answers are here.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#47 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 1:08 am

worcej wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 1:04 am
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:28 am
@Worcej: You have a female wife or partner, yes?

Let's imagine she is raped and gets pregnant.

Now let's imagine she's traumatised by this and doesn't want to have the baby.

Would you support her wish to have an abortion? Or would you force her to have the baby?
I already said I was pro-choice Jamie, so you should already know what my answers are here.
Then you should be disgusted by Republicans in Idaho, Alabama, and other states where they are trying to take control of women's bodies.

Forgive me if I've missed something, but you don't seem to be all that outraged by their fucking awful positions.

worcej
Posts: 8770
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:39 am
Location: Washington
Karma: 4828

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#48 Post by worcej » Fri May 13, 2022 1:15 am

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:30 am
Randomizer wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:16 am
Idaho wants to make it that a rapist's family can sue if the victim gets an abortion.

Meanwhile the laws ending or restricting abortion violate the 13th amendment of the US Constitution:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5 ... amendment/

The new laws forces pregnant women to be involuntary slaves that no longer have free will over the use of their own bodies. Of course rich people can afford to go to other countries that allow abortion. But these new laws end equal rights where the poorer people can't.
@Worcej: Show me that this evil shit is not evil. This is fucking vile and you are supporting it.
Randomizer is somewhat misleading with what they are quoting - I would actually know since I do live in Idaho.

The law as it was wrote would make it so family members could sue the abortion PROVIDERS if they do an abortion outside of the fetal heartbeat detection, not just because an abortion would happen. It's pretty much a mimic of the Texas law. Also, it was stopped by the Idaho Supreme Court, so it isn't an actual thing still and doesn't have a 'go live' provision if Roe is overturned.

Do I think this is archaic as fuck? Yes I absolutely do. However I can tell you that the society I live in is very clearly anti-abortion and non-progressive. Idaho is a pretty authentically conservative state and said law represents the vast majority of public opinion on the matter of abortion.

worcej
Posts: 8770
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:39 am
Location: Washington
Karma: 4828

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#49 Post by worcej » Fri May 13, 2022 1:21 am

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 1:08 am
worcej wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 1:04 am
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:28 am
@Worcej: You have a female wife or partner, yes?

Let's imagine she is raped and gets pregnant.

Now let's imagine she's traumatised by this and doesn't want to have the baby.

Would you support her wish to have an abortion? Or would you force her to have the baby?
I already said I was pro-choice Jamie, so you should already know what my answers are here.
Then you should be disgusted by Republicans in Idaho, Alabama, and other states where they are trying to take control of women's bodies.

Forgive me if I've missed something, but you don't seem to be all that outraged by their fucking awful positions.
Because I am very pro-state rights and respect that the decisions limiting abortion made by politicians in Republican states reflect the will of the people they represent.

I don't agree with the position, but that doesn't mean I need to call people evil and demonize them for having a different opinion on this issue. I am financially comfortable enough to make life decisions, such as moving back to Washington, should Idaho decide to escalate their archaic law to punish people for traveling for an abortion (which I don't see happening FWIW).

For now, I enjoy living in a state with a balanced budget who has issued tax refunds due to the state's surplus and one of few states already recovered from the COVID lockdowns that were fucking arbitrary and destroyed small businesses and are part of why we're facing a recession.
1

worcej
Posts: 8770
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:39 am
Location: Washington
Karma: 4828

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#50 Post by worcej » Fri May 13, 2022 1:24 am

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:46 am
worcej wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 6:42 pm
Reality is though that these legislators are representing the will of their constituents.
If some of those constituents think that the primary purpose of a woman is to be a breeding vessel as God commands, they can Fuck. Off. Fuck those people. Their medieval views should be disregarded.

If a majority of people in your backward state voted to kill all the jews and the gays, would you cheer for that to happen? Yes or fucking no?
Obviously No - but this whataboutism and trying to compare limiting abortion to an ethnic cleansing is stupid and you know that.
1

Octavious
Posts: 2828
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2173
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#51 Post by Octavious » Fri May 13, 2022 5:57 am

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:31 am
This is a battle of right vs wrong and I've picked a fucking side.
Is it? Honestly, Jamie, it feels more like Yank bashing to me. In the battle of right vs wrong you've been mostly AWOL when it comes to the battlefields of Mexico, say. Or the many other battlefields of South America, Africa, and South Asia for that matter. You will make the occasional sortie into the likes of Poland, perhaps, but the fervent zeal is reserved solely for the US.

And in the battle, what objectives do you think the role of angry foreigner lecturing Yanks on how to live will achieve? There's the boost to your own sense of purpose and wellbeing, perhaps, which is not without value, but in terms of the issue itself? Portraying the other side of the argument as evil guarantees that there will be no converts, and your hard line makes it hard for the neutrals to warm to you either. Do you see yourself as a motivational speaker for the fundamentalists, perhaps? Injecting a little bit of a adrenaline into the base?
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#52 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 10:48 am

worcej wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 1:24 am
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:46 am
worcej wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 6:42 pm
Reality is though that these legislators are representing the will of their constituents.
If some of those constituents think that the primary purpose of a woman is to be a breeding vessel as God commands, they can Fuck. Off. Fuck those people. Their medieval views should be disregarded.

If a majority of people in your backward state voted to kill all the jews and the gays, would you cheer for that to happen? Yes or fucking no?
Obviously No - but this whataboutism and trying to compare limiting abortion to an ethnic cleansing is stupid and you know that.
Well you're happy for people to vote to abolish women's rights.

Just trying to establish where you draw the line.

Women reduced to second-class citizens whose primary role is as breeding units = fine.

Rounding up the Jews and the gays = a bit too far.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#53 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 10:54 am

Octavious wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 5:57 am
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:31 am
This is a battle of right vs wrong and I've picked a fucking side.
Is it? Honestly, Jamie, it feels more like Yank bashing to me. In the battle of right vs wrong you've been mostly AWOL when it comes to the battlefields of Mexico, say. Or the many other battlefields of South America, Africa, and South Asia for that matter. You will make the occasional sortie into the likes of Poland, perhaps, but the fervent zeal is reserved solely for the US.

And in the battle, what objectives do you think the role of angry foreigner lecturing Yanks on how to live will achieve? There's the boost to your own sense of purpose and wellbeing, perhaps, which is not without value, but in terms of the issue itself? Portraying the other side of the argument as evil guarantees that there will be no converts, and your hard line makes it hard for the neutrals to warm to you either. Do you see yourself as a motivational speaker for the fundamentalists, perhaps? Injecting a little bit of a adrenaline into the base?
Well isn't this what-about-ery of the highest order? I can't have an opinion about abortion rights in the USA unless I also post threads about abortion rights in every other country on Earth? Get out of here.

As for Mexico, that's a strange example for you to raise. Abortion was legalised in Mexico in 2007, and in September 2021, the Mexican Supreme Court unanimously ruled that penalising abortion is unconstitutional. So it sounds like Mexico is heading in the right direction, where as the USA is heading backwards.

As for your second question, I'm not portraying a "role". You make it sound as if I'm acting. If I seem angry about this issue it's because I AM FUCKING ANGRY.

Octavious
Posts: 2828
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2173
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#54 Post by Octavious » Fri May 13, 2022 12:35 pm

I wasn't questioning your right to an opinion. I was questioning your perception that you're in some kind of good vs evil battle. You are truly blessed to have a great number of strong opinions and I wouldn't dream of denying you that core part of your personality even if I somehow had the ability to do so :razz:
Last edited by Octavious on Fri May 13, 2022 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

Octavious
Posts: 2828
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2173
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#55 Post by Octavious » Fri May 13, 2022 12:36 pm

.
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#56 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 6:09 pm

Octavious wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:35 pm
I wasn't questioning your right to an opinion. I was questioning your perception that you're in some kind of good vs evil battle. You are truly blessed to have a great number of strong opinions and I wouldn't dream of denying you that core part of your personality even if I somehow had the ability to do so :razz:
No, fair enough, but I'm not sure why you're criticising me for not talking about abortion rights in Mexico. For one thing, I didn't start this thread, and for another thing, Mexico's supreme court is going in the right direction on this issue, it would seem.

worcej
Posts: 8770
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:39 am
Location: Washington
Karma: 4828

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#57 Post by worcej » Fri May 13, 2022 6:48 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 10:48 am
worcej wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 1:24 am
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 12:46 am


If some of those constituents think that the primary purpose of a woman is to be a breeding vessel as God commands, they can Fuck. Off. Fuck those people. Their medieval views should be disregarded.

If a majority of people in your backward state voted to kill all the jews and the gays, would you cheer for that to happen? Yes or fucking no?
Obviously No - but this whataboutism and trying to compare limiting abortion to an ethnic cleansing is stupid and you know that.
Well you're happy for people to vote to abolish women's rights.

Just trying to establish where you draw the line.

Women reduced to second-class citizens whose primary role is as breeding units = fine.

Rounding up the Jews and the gays = a bit too far.
Still representing my opinion incredibly disingenuously here, but you do you dude.

At no point have I implied I am happy nor believe women should be reduced to second class citizens, yet you're here asserting that's my position.

worcej
Posts: 8770
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:39 am
Location: Washington
Karma: 4828

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#58 Post by worcej » Fri May 13, 2022 6:54 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 10:54 am
Well isn't this what-about-ery of the highest order? I can't have an opinion about abortion rights in the USA unless I also post threads about abortion rights in every other country on Earth? Get out of here.
From my limited involvement in this area, you seem to consistently have opinions on American law/practice without fully understanding the nuance of how America actually works.

The Rittenhouse ruling post was a great example of this and some portions of your opinion here, especially with the whataboutism with people who are not as passionate as you are, makes it appear you're more just Anti-American than actually want to address the topic of a thread.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#59 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 9:46 pm

worcej wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 6:48 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 10:48 am
worcej wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 1:24 am
Obviously No - but this whataboutism and trying to compare limiting abortion to an ethnic cleansing is stupid and you know that.
Well you're happy for people to vote to abolish women's rights.

Just trying to establish where you draw the line.

Women reduced to second-class citizens whose primary role is as breeding units = fine.

Rounding up the Jews and the gays = a bit too far.
Still representing my opinion incredibly disingenuously here, but you do you dude.

At no point have I implied I am happy nor believe women should be reduced to second class citizens, yet you're here asserting that's my position.
But overturning the precendt in Roe vs Wade does that.

Discuss your position in that context. Please do.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 21085
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 13706
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

#60 Post by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 13, 2022 9:49 pm

worcej wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 6:54 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 10:54 am
Well isn't this what-about-ery of the highest order? I can't have an opinion about abortion rights in the USA unless I also post threads about abortion rights in every other country on Earth? Get out of here.
From my limited involvement in this area, you seem to consistently have opinions on American law/practice without fully understanding the nuance of how America actually works.

The Rittenhouse ruling post was a great example of this and some portions of your opinion here, especially with the whataboutism with people who are not as passionate as you are, makes it appear you're more just Anti-American than actually want to address the topic of a thread.
Let me make myself very clear then.

I want women to have the right of abortion up to and including the day before childbirth.

I consider anyone opposed to this position to be anti-woman, and anti women's rights.

Clear?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest