Roe V Wade has been repealed

[The Catboy]

And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.

Imagine hating freedom as much as Conservatives do

 

[Deleted member 533457]

So... it's official, abortion is now illegal in USA
Your though?
https://www.google.com/search?q=roe...HSnUCtsQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=899&dpr=1

EDIT : Just so that people stop saying it, I understand now that i MISunderstood the news
I know now that abortion right is now up to states juridiction
It just isn't constitutional anymore and not illegal

It's me or this would end in 30 pages of comments?

 

[Lacius]

Not an issue anywhere outside of USA

First, yeah it is. Second, it's not an issue in a lot of places because they have legal abortion.

it's just there your two parties have an interest and need a story to pull votes.

It wouldn't be an issue if one political party weren't trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Abortion is not the issue, just don't sleep around and you won't have problems.

The drive for sex is generally a biological drive analogous to the drive for food or water.

 

[Noctosphere]

Imagine hating freedom as much as Conservatives do

as i said, conservatives don't hate freedom
They are ALL IN FAVOR for guns

 

[MadonnaProject]

And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah no, this isn't the case.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Abortion is not the issue, just don't sleep around and you won't have problems.

"Just don't get raped, and you won't have problems"

That would mean the collapse of america as we know it.

Good. Let it f*cking fall at this point.

 

[Hanafuda]

Good to see the conservatives all up in arms about taking away abortion rights while still holding on to their "you can't take away my guns" 2A rights.

One of those things is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and one is not in the Constitution anywhere. Not even by inference.

That's all this is to me. The scope of the Federal government's power begins and ends with the Constitution. The Constitution says one of these things, the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be denied or infringed. The other thing, abortion, is none of the Federal government's business.

 

[Lacius]

Yeah no, this isn't the case.

Roe was precedent for a lot of these rights, and Thomas himself says that these things should be relitigated. If any of these issues came before the Supreme Court, they'd strike them down. Not only would it be consistent, but again, Thomas said as much.

 

[Creamu]

Good. Let it f*cking fall at this point.

If persons of order would alleviate the situation I think that would be preferable for most. Practical? Im not so optimistic...

 

[SyphenFreht]

Yeah no, this isn't the case.

Thank God you're right

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ng-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...0PADegQIChAH&usg=AOvVaw2kcclTqy27MHEOIvc2sjkY

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...0PADegQIChAL&usg=AOvVaw3zNFKc_Do6hVFZNgd4NnUu

 

[The Catboy]

as i said, conservatives don't hate freedom
They are ALL IN FAVOR for guns

Unless it’s people of color owning them, Conservatives have a long history of not like that

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Yeah no, this isn't the case.

Are you illiterate or have you read the decision?

 

[WiiHomebrew+Snes]

One of those things is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and one is not in the Constitution anywhere. Not even by inference.

That's all this is to me. The scope of the Federal government's power begins and ends with the Constitution. The Constitution says one of these things, the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be denied or infringed. The other thing, abortion, is none of the Federal government's business.

Which is why the second it's possible to vote on a new amendment ensuring the right to abortion nationwide I will be voting to support it. Or moving to Canada, whichever comes first.

 

[Lacius]

The Constitution says one of these things, the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be denied or infringed.

You left out the, uh, militia part.

and one is not in the Constitution anywhere. Not even by inference.

Just because a word isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't apply to that thing. The Second Amendment doesn't mention any modern weapons, yet you are all arguing that it applies to them.

 

[Phenj]

Based

 

[The Catboy]

Good news States are deciding

There’s no such thing as ending abortion. Abortions are just going to be moved out of the clean and professional environment and into dirty motels again. Abortions are going to keep happening regardless of the law.

 

[MicroNut99]

Fucking lame

 

[SyphenFreht]

One of those things is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and one is not in the Constitution anywhere. Not even by inference.

That's all this is to me. The scope of the Federal government's power begins and ends with the Constitution. The Constitution says one of these things, the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be denied or infringed. The other thing, abortion, is none of the Federal government's business.

Even though you could be "technically" correct it's not about that as much as giving more people more room to set legal precedence to take away more rights under other guises. With as many anti abortion and anti women politicians we have, even on state and local levels, this now gives them more opportunities to oppress as they see fit, no longer under the protection of a larger umbrella law. Some states may stand solid on their abortion rights, but other states will follow suit and start banning them left and right, which is an infringement of a person's right to bodily autonomy. Not to mention, those who need abortions will still get them, but will lack many important services to ensure their lives aren't lost in the process. It's kinda like the 2A argument "Ban guns and criminals will still get them" except in this case, those seeking medically necessary abortions in red states may get the death penalty as opposed to 30 days and a fine for owning a gun they shouldn't.

What a scummy way to tell women they never should've saw themselves as anything other than

"Designed to give birth", paraphrased from an earlier quote.

 

[DbGt]

Because even the first few states that illegalised abortion said that abortion was still legal within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
Are you saying that the foetus is alive starting on 6th week?
come on...

As far as I know only in Texas its like this, and yes, of course a fetus is alive....

Sex is not consent to become pregnant, and sex does not mean one chose to become pregnant.

Consent from who? lol, pregnancy is a physiological process, it does not need consent from anyone. You had unprotected sex? then theres a probability you can get pregnant, very simple. Cause and effect, action and consequence.

An embryo is not a person, and even if it were, that wouldn't change the fact that a person should have a right to bodily autonomy.

Nobody said its a person, but its a human being in development . Again, becoming pregnant is a choice, every person has the right of becoming pregnant or not

You should look up the naturalistic fallacy.

Im just replying to your bad "analogy". You are comparing a physiological process to removing a kidney........

If you don't give this stranger one of your kidneys, they die. It's an apt analogy.

no, its not. In your example, a disease will kill the person. In an abortion the mother kills her own child

 

[Hanafuda]

You left out the, uh, militia part.


Just because a word isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't apply to that thing. The Second Amendment doesn't mention any modern weapons, yet you are all arguing that it applies to them.

You left out the distinguishing between the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The 2A guarantees the right to the people, not to a militia.

The "modern weapons" argument is also a loser. Does 1st amendment freedom of the press apply only to newspapers and "hand bills" printed on manual presses using moveable type? The 2nd Amendment intends for the people to have access to meaningful, effective weapons for defense and resistance. That means current, not archaic.