«12. . .333435363738394041»
Shameful ruling by the United States Supreme Court.
Malcholm and Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands
I have to disagree.
Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, all the ruling said is that there is NOT a constitutional right to an abortion.
The founders did not include any provision or 'right' to an abortion, and no constitutional amendment was ever made saying so either.
I understand being upset about the consequences of the ruling, but the ruling itself was just a basic clarification of law which anyone who thinks about it in good faith would agree with.
Why? It means less dead babies.
I do not base my life, and I do not expect anyone else - to base their life off a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago. I do not care if you support abortion or are against it. (Pro-Life is a neat marketing campaign by republicans... who isn't Pro living? But that's a digression and a topic for another day.)
I will make it brief as possible - Roe v Wade protected the right of a woman to have an abortion. Ie preventing a state from banning or obstructing a woman's access to this healthcare service. What a woman chooses (or doesn't choose) to do with their pregnancy and their body is not my call or judgement to make. If the woman wants an abortion, let her go. If she wants to keep it, let her keep it. Wow that was so simple and makes everyone happy.
Oh wait, nope. The people who are against abortion don't want those who are in favor to get that service.
Now, we have one side telling the other what they can and can not do with their body.
Before, with the protections of Roe v Wade - it was the woman's choice on what they do with their pregnancy.
Now, state governments can impose their will upon a free woman and decide what a woman can do with her body.
If I want to terminate my pregnancy, let me do that.
If I want to carry an unborn child to term, let me do that.
Why can't I have both options available?
With Roe v Wade, both of those above statements were true.
Now, with it repealed, some states decide whether to allow both statements to be true, or to restrict the right of a person to terminate their pregnancy.
The repeal of Roe v Wade has restricted basic human rights of one's own control of their body.
I don't care if it wasn't written on a piece of paper a hundred plus years ago. The year is 2022 and we're living by standards from 1776. I can tell you a lot has changed since then.
tl;dr Why can't both options be available to women?
That is a moral question and not something that I have the right to force upon someone else.
If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, she will carry that burden with her. Not me. Do not force your morality or ethics onto someone else. An adult is capable of making their own decision if it disagrees with your own.
Less dead babies sure. But more babies are born into poverty which statistically skews them towards poorer health and healthcare access as well as more susceptible to drugs and crime.
Jack and Jill are low income with 5 young children. They can't afford and have no access to contraceptives. Don't forget that we are animals with animal desires and urges - we have sex.
Jill gets pregnant. They can barely afford their 5 children, and now they have a 6th on the way.
What is better for them and their 5 young children? To terminate a pregnancy after a few weeks/months to allow them to provide for the 5 children they are already raising? Or to allow a 6th child to be born into poverty and now with a family that can not afford to feed 6 children. By a state banning abortion, they have made that decision for them. The state government has sealed Jack, Jill, and their 6 children's fate. It is Jill's right to decide what is best for her and her family. Sometimes that means losing an unborn child.
"If they can't afford kids, don't have sex" That is unreasonable and a bad argument.
Life is difficult. Who am I to tell someone what to do with their life? I'm no one.
Wolflandil, Malcholm, and Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands
Also, good ol Clarence Thomas slipped in his opinion stating the court should revisit a few other rulings, mostly about same sex couples and marriage. But nothing about inter-racial relations.
I love when a black man in an inter-racial marriage is against gay marriage.
Rules for thee but not for me.
Couldn't of put it better myself, but just a few side statements I have to add in.
Abortion itself is a medical procedure- something that is between a doctor and a patient. There are numerous reasons that one takes place as well. It is a genuinely tough decision to make, but a lot of states will even force victims of SA to birth a child. I would never want to even think about the mental anguish that would cause someone.
In a perfect world where people weren't evil, people were always healthy and had enough resources to raise a child abortions wouldn't be nessicary. We don't live in that perfect world, so it's better that abortion is available and some completely unnecessary ones happen than those who genuinely need one suffer.
Gyuamno and Malcholm
1. You do not have the right to make a choice that directly leads to the death of another human being. Especially a innocent baby.
2. I would rather be born into a life of poverty if the alternative was no life at all.
3. The state should support Jack and Jill with a series of government programs aiming to provide them with all the necessary recorces to raise they're children. The solution is to help support these children after they are born, as well as during the pregnancy, not kill them while they're still in the womb.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/
I'll leave this here. Explain to this 10 year old that abortion isn't written in a document from the 1700s.
1. The government also does not have the right to tell someone what to do with their bodies.
2. You have the thought process now, because you are alive and conscious. Do you remmeber your existence in the womb? I don't. If I was killed in the womb, it wouldn't really matter to me. I had no thoughts or consciousness.
3. HA, Republicans hate "welfare queens". Red states try to limit social welfare programs as much as possible. They say California and Washington are democratic socialist hell holes. But yet they have some of the most robust social programs available to their citizens.
1. I'm not sure if they have the right too or not, but they sure do act like it. I know they do have the right to draft someone into a war, and the right to imprison them for a crime committed. Both of which arguably count as telling them what they can do with they're bodies.
2. By that logic a murder victim dosent give a crap that they got murders because they're dead. So should we just let they're killers go free? I think not.
3. You see the problem with having only two parties is that they're both wrong sometimes. In my opinion the democrats are wrong on abortion, and the republicans are wrong on welfare. If the two of them could just come to a compromise where Abortions are banned, but at the same time a extensive welfare system were to be created aiming to eliminate the root cause of why women want abortions in the first place, Then I think we would have the best of both worlds.
If the pregnancy is going to kill the mother, which it would if they were 10, then abortion should be a option. That's the only circumstances I can see it being allowed for tho.
Can a prepubescent girl even get pregnant tho? I was under the impression that fertility began at they're first period.
That is a fair point to bring up. Thomas is alone on that though.
Luckily nothing will happen on those points though, the other Justices essentially affirmed that stare decisis would still apply to those other rulings and that reversals aren't being looked at or considered.
A prepubescent girl cannot get pregnant. However, ten year olds can start puberty early and thus be able to get pregnant.
Vedan, Wolflandil, and Malcholm
Post self-deleted by Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands.
To add on to this, the reality of human biology is quite a bit more complex than "x bodily function begins at y age."
I was unaware puberty could even start at 10. That's usually something that starts at around age 13.
Blessed be, it's the holy Melons of St. Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands!
Wolflandil, Malcholm, and Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands
Hello 😄
Gyuamno and Malcholm
This has been a eventful few days. Shinzo Abe has been assassinated. Boris Johnson has been forced to resign. And Elon Musk is backing out of his agreement to buy twitter.
Post self-deleted by Vedan.
Ew, ranked top 10% most advanced law enforcement.
Gyuamno is DEFUNDING THE POLICE!
Wolflandil and Malcholm
I have voted FOR the Security Council proposal to Liberate the Realm Of The Whispering Winds. page=sc
The Partnership for Sovereignty makes a good case as to why, here:
Liberate Realm of the Whispering WindsVoting Recommendation: FOR
Reasoning: Realm of the Whispering Winds is a region with vibrant history and a native community that calls the region home. Due to its founderless state; however, the region is at risk from forces that wish to destroy it.
Over the past few days, a raider coalition has overthrown the rightful delegate and seized control over the region. Each raiding force has shown no hesitation in harming innocent communities before. They banned members from A Liberal Haven and refounded The Mystical Council, turning a once-thriving region into a trophy. Without quick action, there is nothing stopping them from eventually banning all natives and refounding the region, completely devastating the community and wiping away the region’s history.
The at-vote proposal “Liberate Realm of the Whispering Winds” would mean that raider forces are unable to install a password in the region. With raider forces unable to prevent nations from moving in, liberators will be able to enter and save the region from destruction.
Whilst we at the PfS usually oppose resolutions that are not publically drafted, when a mere matter of hours can make the difference between a region’s freedom or its annihilation, usual Security Council norms must yield to exceptional circumstances.
Therefore, in order to prevent a peaceful community from being wiped out and to allow them to regain rightful control over their region, the Partnership for Sovereignty recommends a vote FOR “Liberate Realm of the Whispering Winds”.
I encourage you all vote for it as well.
Hello, are we going to be participating in N-Day? it is September 24th to 25th
«12. . .333435363738394041»
Advertisement
