U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Dark_Ansem]

Not that it matters that you chose to assume that she was promiscuous. Even if that were the case, you presented it as an insult, which is a particularly "incel" thing to do.

Actually I was faithfully identifying you, and you still don't know what incel means, you bad faith troll.

I'm sorry where, exactly, in that lovely screenshot of yours, is the reference of what you THINK I said? Because It's not anywhere. Is your ignorance that deep? Probably as deep as your functional illiteracy.

For the reference of everyone: incel AND mistress.
Literally nothing I said could be even remotely attributed to "incel" mindset - plenty of what you say, on the other hand, is.

 

[tabzer]

It doesn't matter what I think.

Even if you elected for the most deragatory definition of mistress, you chose to represent her as the town bicycle. Whether that was a Freudian slip or temporary lapse in definition recall, you chose to attack me by attacking a woman.

My previous post is more succinct in wrapping you up in a nice package. I don't think I can do better than perfect.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Even if you elected for the most deragatory definition of mistress, you chose to represent her as the town bicycle. Whether that was a Freudian slip or temporary lapse in definition recall, you chose to attack me by attacking a woman.

it wasn't even me who came up with that idea LMAO, no Grand Prix motorcycle knowledge I see, and I attacked no woman because, to me, promiscuity isn't necessarily an undesirable trait. You need to be more careful with your words and respect "your GF" more. You're the one who somehow put across the idea promiscuity was a bad thing, I made no such judgement.

My previous post is more succinct in wrapping you up in a nice package. I don't think I can do better than perfect.

LOL you're as far from perfection as you are from making any sort of contribution, or sense, in this thread. Again, it's no one's fault but yours if you're illiterate and ignorant of basic Sex Ed.

It doesn't matter what I think.

Finally something we agree on!

 

[Dr_Faustus]

Look, I support the ideals of BLM, but the group itself are a corrupt bunch of bastards.

Every public group built movement is susceptible to corruption. Mainly because there is no restriction on who can join, why they are doing it and how they are going to do it. I am pretty sure at least a good number of people in the capital riot were just there protesting until a good chunk of them got ballsy enough to actually storm it. Its basically people using the movement as an excuse to commit crimes out of the nature of "protesting". Not everyone under the umbrella of a movement are going to support extremists or petty criminals as it will make the entire movement look bad, but they can't stop them from associating themselves with them either. Its the inherent flaw of open movements.

Personally I think most public movements are FUBAR at its inception of being made. What starts off as meaningful and peaceful protesting to get awareness becomes a shitstorm of arseholes looking to fuck shit up and get away with it because they are acting under the movement as a means to deflect their activities as "activism".

 

[Deleted member 586536]

snipped because I'm a dumb ass sometimes

 

[Hanafuda]

I believe if you wear a condom while having sex, pregnancy is not a reasonable expectation.

Sure it is. It's a risk mitigation effort (and not just against pregnancy) but a condom isn't certain prevention. Even birth control pills are not certain, though they're pretty reliable if taken as directed.

Assuming neither has had a surgical procedure or has a medical condition precluding it, sexual intercourse between biological male and female = risk of pregnancy. Period. Engaging in sexual intercourse = assumption of that risk. Period. If the sexual intercourse is consensual, then any resulting pregnancy is likewise. Even if you don't want it, even if it occurred as a result of wilfull negligence, by fucking you assumed the risk and allowed for the possibility. Period.

Humans have known all this for thousands of years. It's only since the 1970's that people who don't want to accept that reality have been inventing verbal pretzels to justify denial of the obvious.

There is a whole barrel full of such pretzels in this thread.

 

[tabzer]

Sure it is. It's a risk mitigation effort (and not just against pregnancy) but a condom isn't certain prevention. Even birth control pills are not certain, though they're pretty reliable if taken as directed.

Assuming neither has had a surgical procedure or has a medical condition precluding it, sexual intercourse between biological male and female = risk of pregnancy. Period. Engaging in sexual intercourse = assumption of that risk. Period. If the sexual intercourse is consensual, then any resulting pregnancy is likewise. Even if you don't want it, even if it occurred as a result of wilfull negligence, by fucking you assumed the risk and allowed for the possibility. Period.

Humans have known all this for thousands of years. It's only since the 1970's that people who don't want to accept that reality have been inventing verbal pretzels to justify denial of the obvious.

There is a whole barrel full of such pretzels in this thread.

Reasonable outcome, yes. Reasonable expectation, not so much. Nobody wears a condom with the expectation of getting pregnant.

 

[Hanafuda]

Nobody wears a condom with the expectation of getting pregnant.

I know what you mean but I would say they wear it with the HOPE of not getting pregnant. Small but important distinction. As SyphenFreht pointed out, torn condoms happen. It's common.

 

[tabzer]

I know what you mean but I would say they wear it with the HOPE of not getting pregnant. Small but important distinction. As SyphenFreht pointed out, torn condoms happen. It's common.

Poke and hope.

 

[smf]

I haven't been nor am I interested in discussion about how the legal window for abortion should or could be decreased. I don't pretend that I am in an position to decide.

You're still taking a position, maybe the window should be increased?

 

[smf]

as I would be more concerned with why a woman may feel the need to abort.

She doesn't want to have that child.

It's quite normal for a woman to have sex with a man, but not want to have "his" children.

 

[smf]

Every public group built movement is susceptible to corruption. Mainly because there is no restriction on who can join, why they are doing it and how they are going to do it. I am pretty sure at least a good number of people in the capital riot were just there protesting until a good chunk of them got ballsy enough to actually storm it.

Some of the capital rioters, I assume, are good people. Though you'd have to be naive to think it wouldn't have kicked off like that, because all of the social media and news coverage was full of people alluding to what was going to happen.

But yeah, it is complete and utter prejudice to assume that people will be good or bad just because they are supporters of BLM.

People essentially saying that they won't support the aims of the BLM movement, because of the actions of some of it's members, kinda looks like trying to justify racism.

You can take the knee, not shoot black people etc but still try to sort out corruption too.

 

[KuntilanakMerah]

Life is sacred in or out of the womb. Killing the unborn is wrong. Take responsibility for your actions.

True

 

[tabzer]

You're still taking a position, maybe the window should be increased?

I'm not interested in fortifying or changing law. That's a projection.

She doesn't want to have that child.

It's quite normal for a woman to have sex with a man, but not want to have "his" children.

First, he "persuaded" her, even if it was easy to do.

Second, the claim that one engages in the act of procreation without the desire of procreating is contradiction.

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

What's the big deal about it being overturned?

Doesn't this just mean abortion won't be a federal law and it will go down to a state by state level of where it should be legal?

If you look into the Rowe trial the whole thing was a sham. She lied about the entire thing.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

What's the big deal about it being overturned?

Doesn't this just mean abortion won't be a federal law and it will go down to a state by state level of where it should be legal?

If you look into the Rowe trial the whole thing was a sham. She lied about the entire thing.

Because they need the easiest access to sacrifice unborn babies to Satan without that much effort or push back duh lol

 

[Dr_Faustus]

Some of the capital rioters, I assume, are good people. Though you'd have to be naive to think it wouldn't have kicked off like that, because all of the social media and news coverage was full of people alluding to what was going to happen.

But yeah, it is complete and utter prejudice to assume that people will be good or bad just because they are supporters of BLM.

People essentially saying that they won't support the aims of the BLM movement, because of the actions of some of it's members, kinda looks like trying to justify racism.

You can take the knee, not shoot black people etc but still try to sort out corruption too.

Its become a real murky shitshow with trying to support something when a lot of the original good will behind it has turned sour. In the same vein as the capitol riot the situation with the Floyd riots. Even if the intention was once for good reason and to simply bring support/acknowledgement of the issue it quickly grew out of hand into acts of vandalism/burglary and even arson. No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on this kind of shit just looks bad for everyone involved and taints any respect or good will your movement ever had.

The real issue is you really cannot support anything anymore without it being an example of being in extreme support of it. It becomes short sighted as well given that the real issues of this country and society in general far expand and extend the limits of BLM or any of those things.

What's the big deal about it being overturned?

Doesn't this just mean abortion won't be a federal law and it will go down to a state by state level of where it should be legal?

If you look into the Rowe trial the whole thing was a sham. She lied about the entire thing.

You probably do not understand how the legal system works here but basically while state and federal tend to align with each other with laws there are instances where state legality may work against federal legality. A great example of this is with Marijuana legalization. Its legal either medicinally and/or recreationally in some states however federally its still very much against the law, and at any point they could decide out of the blue to send out ATF raids to any dispensary and clean out their store/arrest anyone there regardless of local laws. Its happened before in the past especially in California and as a result its one of the biggest reasons people want it to be federally legalized so these things do not randomly happen.



The issue here is that despite many states and officials having their own issues and opinions on abortion laws in general since Rv.W its on a federal level supported and legal. That means as much as some states and officials would hate it and love to ban/remove these places and services from their state they legally are not within that power to, as that would most likely get the people in that state to get pissed off enough to actually take them to supreme court and force them to keep those services active in said state. There have been plenty of instances, especially unsurprisingly in Southern states where the means and services are so stripped away and made incredibly difficult for anyone to use that some people would have to travel out of state just to get it done, which in that alone is not right. That said they cannot outright remove/ban these services entirely from the state because again, its a federally enforced law that supports having these services available, even if the state makes it nigh-impossible to allow women to get it done, it still has to be offered as a service.

If Rv.W is overturned, this would basically make it so the states that do not want to have those services freely able to remove them and make it illegal. It also means that depending on your state's governor and parties involved the laws can change and fluctuate over the years. It becomes an already pain in the ass situation far more infinitely difficult.

If you have to travel out of state or even out of country to get a medical procedure done, that should already note a problem that should not need to exist. Especially if the reason is because its made illegal in your state.

 

[smf]

The real issue is you really cannot support anything anymore without it being an example of being in extreme support of it. It becomes short sighted as well given that the real issues of this country and society in general far expand and extend the limits of BLM or any of those things.

The negativity that BLM had at every turn, with the people who opposed it joyfully waiting for problems to occur, shows just how ingrained the problems they face are.

Comparing that to the capitol riot, where basically the same people convinced themselves of voter fraud, is kinda disingenous.

Yes there are problems in the country, but it would be far easier to deal with if it wasn't for them.

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

Its become a real murky shitshow with trying to support something when a lot of the original good will behind it has turned sour. In the same vein as the capitol riot the situation with the Floyd riots. Even if the intention was once for good reason and to simply bring support/acknowledgement of the issue it quickly grew out of hand into acts of vandalism/burglary and even arson. No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on this kind of shit just looks bad for everyone involved and taints any respect or good will your movement ever had.

The real issue is you really cannot support anything anymore without it being an example of being in extreme support of it. It becomes short sighted as well given that the real issues of this country and society in general far expand and extend the limits of BLM or any of those things.



You probably do not understand how the legal system works here but basically while state and federal tend to align with each other with laws there are instances where state legality may work against federal legality. A great example of this is with Marijuana legalization. Its legal either medicinally and/or recreationally in some states however federally its still very much against the law, and at any point they could decide out of the blue to send out ATF raids to any dispensary and clean out their store/arrest anyone there regardless of local laws. Its happened before in the past especially in California and as a result its one of the biggest reasons people want it to be federally legalized so these things do not randomly happen.



The issue here is that despite many states and officials having their own issues and opinions on abortion laws in general since Rv.W its on a federal level supported and legal. That means as much as some states and officials would hate it and love to ban/remove these places and services from their state they legally are not within that power to, as that would most likely get the people in that state to get pissed off enough to actually take them to supreme court and force them to keep those services active in said state. There have been plenty of instances, especially unsurprisingly in Southern states where the means and services are so stripped away and made incredibly difficult for anyone to use that some people would have to travel out of state just to get it done, which in that alone is not right. That said they cannot outright remove/ban these services entirely from the state because again, its a federally enforced law that supports having these services available, even if the state makes it nigh-impossible to allow women to get it done, it still has to be offered as a service.

If Rv.W is overturned, this would basically make it so the states that do not want to have those services freely able to remove them and make it illegal. It also means that depending on your state's governor and parties involved the laws can change and fluctuate over the years. It becomes an already pain in the ass situation far more infinitely difficult.

If you have to travel out of state or even out of country to get a medical procedure done, that should already note a problem that should not need to exist. Especially if the reason is because its made illegal in your state.

So basically exactly what I said.

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

The negativity that BLM had at every turn, with the people who opposed it joyfully waiting for problems to occur, shows just how ingrained the problems they face are.

Comparing that to the capitol riot, where basically the same people convinced themselves of voter fraud, is kinda disingenous.

Yes there are problems in the country, but it would be far easier to deal with if it wasn't for them.

You're right. Comparing a one hour riot to 120 days of riots IS disingenuous.