Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Deleted member 571007]

Alright, but even still. Even somehow didn't exhaust all their options, They can still put the kid up for adoption.

That is indeed a valid option, but that also strings along a whole new barrel of issues - like how to foster care system is royally screwed and nothings' been done to fix it in years. Not trying to say it's a bad option, and people most certainly are able to get better lives with their adoptive parents - but there will always be some instances where the opposite happens, that's unavoidable with any institution. But I'll just leave it at that.

 

[MariArch]

That is indeed a valid option, but that also strings along a whole new barrel of issues - like how to foster care system is royally screwed and nothings' been done to fix it in years. Not trying to say it's a bad option, and people most certainly are able to get better lives with their adoptive parents - but there will always be some instances where the opposite happens, that's unavoidable with any institution. But I'll just leave it at that.

I'm fine with a total revamp of our foster care system. Kids deserve a good place to live and thrive. Luckily many many families adopt children every day in this country. So much so that I believe there is a shortage of babies up for adoption last time I checked

 

[Xzi]

Sir. Take your pills.

Many many companies, including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are literally about to fund their idiot workers expenses to travel to an abortion mill state.

If by "many many," you mean like 5% of the working class, sure. Damn near 70% of American jobs are in the service industry, they aren't paying nearly well enough for that or offering those kinds of benefits. The republican mentality is "fuck you I got mine" from the top down, so I sure as hell hope poor people who support them can win the lottery, because otherwise they're all SOL for life. Especially if they're a woman who was raped or would be put out onto the streets to afford a baby.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

The whole point of this decision is that they're taking away power from the top and giving it to states lmfao. Y'all are whack

No the whole point was for a minority party to make a decision the majority did not want to go with, in which that same minority party is over represented in their own states through gerrymandering.
Republicans banned abortions in their states. Didn't go into effect until Republicans overturned Roe v Wade. And because that case got reversed. Now the other cases for contraceptives, such as condoms and birth control, same sex marriage is at risk.
This isn't making states more powerful. This is making it so it's okay to take rights away from the people who are in those states. This effects poor people the most. Who cannot move to get out of those states. This is straight up again, minority ruling over the majority of people.

 

[MariArch]

No the whole point was for a minority party to make a decision the majority did not want to go with, in which that same minority party is over represented in their own states through gerrymandering.
Republicans banned abortions in their states. Didn't go into effect until Republicans overturned Roe v Wade. And because that case got reversed. Now the other cases for contraceptives, such as condoms and birth control, same sex marriage is at risk.
This isn't making states more powerful. This is making it so it's okay to take rights away from the people who are in those states. This effects poor people the most. Who cannot move to get out of those states. This is straight up again, minority ruling over the majority of people.

Let me dumb this down for you:

People in a state like California, which has a very large population, will be able to pass laws protecting abortion in their state legislators, which they elect and makes up a majority in their house and senate.

People in a state like Utah, which will elect conservative state legislators and will make up a majority of their house and senate, will be able to make their own laws on the subject and pass laws that the majority of people in their state support.

If a state does or doesn't want to see a law pass, they'll elect different state legislators.

People in California shouldn't be able to tell people in a completely different state what they can or cannot make laws about.


It's called federalism

 

[wartutor]

The real question to ask your democratic representitives is why did they not immediately draw up and start to pass an amendment to the constitution to add abortion when the leak happened instead of waiting for it to be overturned. I can tell you its because if they did they would have nothing to scream about (other than inflation and ever rising gas prices) for the next 4 months to try and get you to vote for them. They would rather put it off to get a few extra votes than jump ahead of the ruling and prevent any of this from happening. (and why havent we found out who leaked these documents and have them in gitmo right now getting water boarded. They should be sittin in a cell in dirty underwear covered in their own shit waiting for a trial that takes years to see a court room.)

 

[wartutor]

If by "many many," you mean like 5% of the working class, sure. Damn near 70% of American jobs are in the service industry, they aren't paying nearly well enough for that or offering those kinds of benefits. The republican mentality is "fuck you I got mine" from the top down, so I sure as hell hope poor people who support them can win the lottery, because otherwise they're all SOL for life. Especially if they're a woman who was raped or would be put out onto the streets to afford a baby.

If that woman was trained and carried a gun maybe she wouldnt of gotten raped....or you know moved out of the democratic run, crime infested city.

 

[MariArch]

If that woman was trained and carried a gun maybe she wouldnt of gotten raped....or you know moved out of the democratic run, crime infested city.

No No NO! The woman shouldn't have a gun to defend themselves with! Guns are evil and kill people! They should have to just take it and get an abortion later!

(/s if.. you know.. you're stupid)

 

[Elodain]

If that woman was trained and carried a gun maybe she wouldnt of gotten raped

I dunno about all that, chief. I mean MAYBE.

But in the moment that shit kind locks a person up. Hard to say if she would have been thinking clearly enough to use it or even try to, or if it would have mattered to the aggressor. It could have just pissed him off and emboldened him to to do more or just outright kill her just to be spiteful.

Not saying she shouldn't have been allowed to have one, but that we don't know if it would have solved anything.

 

[AmandaRose]

If that woman was trained and carried a gun maybe she wouldnt of gotten raped....or you know moved out of the democratic run, crime infested city.

Ah so it's women's fault they can't safely walk the streets without fear of rape. I get ya. Totally not the fault of the actual rapists.

Victim blaming at its finest right there.

 

[MariArch]

Ah so it's women's fault they can't safely walk the streets without fear of rape. I get ya. Totally not the fault of the actual rapists.

Victim blaming at its finest right there.

Em.. you may want to reread that.
He's suggesting that evil people do evil things. And To stop said evil person from doing an evil thing, you can carry a gun to protect yourself.

He never said it was the woman's fault. he just said guns keep you safe lol.

 

[Elodain]

He never said it was the woman's fault.

Well. The words suggest it, but that could just be poor choice of words.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Let me dumb this down for you:

People in a state like California, which has a very large population, will be able to pass laws protecting abortion in their state legislators, which they elect and makes up a majority in their house and senate.

People in a state like Utah, which will elect conservative state legislators and will make up a majority of their house and senate, will be able to make their own laws on the subject and pass laws that the majority of people in their state support.

If a state does or doesn't want to see a law pass, they'll elect different state legislators.

People in California shouldn't be able to tell people in a completely different state what they can or cannot make laws about.


It's called federalism

This DOES not change that 60 percent of people wanted to keep roe v Wade. I don't give three flying fucks if this "federalism" because your blantely ingoting the fact that the Republican party is over represented through extreme amounts gerrymanding. the same kind of gerrymandering the voted no to fix. This isn't federalism. This is a plutocracy. With Republicans abusing the system and getting in power when they don't win the popular vote. Trump didn't win the popular voted but him and his party speed ran appointing supreme court justices. They would of got 2. At max. But when a Democrat was in power for his last 9 months. They stalled indefinitely on his appointment claiming it for "let the people vote" and when trump won the ectoral collage lost the popular vote. He got to make that appointment. And when one of the supreme court justices died 3months before the end of trump's presidency.they rushed on through it as shortly as two weeks.
The blantely misuse of power for their own minority agenda, and removing what over 55 percent of people considered a right. Has and will continue to cause outrage of the highest degree. That many are considering a possible revolution. A government is meant to servre it's people. not the select few, not the select rich. And definitely not a unpopular party ruling ontop of the majority

 

[MariArch]

This DOES not change that 60 percent of people wanted to keep roe v Wade. I don't give three flying fucks if this "federalism" because your blantely ingoting the fact that the Republican party is over represented through extreme amounts gerrymanding. the same kind of gerrymandering the voted no to fix. This isn't federalism. This is a plutocracy. With Republicans abusing the system and getting in power when they don't win the popular vote. Trump didn't win the popular voted but him and his party speed ran appointing supreme court justices. They would of got 2. At max. But when a Democrat was in power for his last 9 months. They stalled indefinitely on his appointment claiming it for "let the people vote" and when trump won the ectoral collage lost the popular vote. He got to make that appointment. And when one of the supreme court justices died 3months before the end of trump's presidency.they rushed on through it as shortly as two weeks.
The blantely misuse of power for their own minority agenda, and removing what over 50 of people considered a right. Has and will continue to cause outrage of the highest degree. That many are considering a possible revolution. A government is meant to servre it's people. not the select few, not the select rich. And definitely not a unpopular party ruling ontop of the majority

Maybe blame the democrats and their nuclear option lol. If democrats never got rid of the judicial filibuster in 2013, then conservatives wouldn't have had the votes needed to appoint the scotus members. That's what happens when you nuke the filibuster lol. You pass things by a slim majority.

And we live in a constitutional republic where each state has very different people. We sign onto a constitution that gives states equal representation in the senate so that the mob of people living in a single state can't trample on the rights of people in Missouri, for instance, to legislate their own damn state.

 

[SyphenFreht]

This is where I would use a "wut?" meme.

Where are guns specifically mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[AmandaRose]

Em.. you may want to reread that.
He's suggesting that evil people do evil things. And To stop said evil person from doing an evil thing, you can carry a gun to protect yourself.

He never said it was the woman's fault. he just said guns keep you safe lol.

Its 100% victim blaming it falls under the why did she just not fight back.

https://www.sace.ca/learn/victim-blaming/

 

[SyphenFreht]

if you really think about it
SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government has no authority over women's bodies

But offers no protection of, either. Drawing straws, yes, but shouldn't a citizen feel protected under their own government?

 

[MariArch]

Where are guns specifically mentioned in the Constitution?

Arms = armaments

Armaments = "military weapons and equipment"

Military weapons and equipment = guns

Just semantics. Quit it

 

[Deleted member 586536]

We sign onto a constitution that gives states equal representation in the senate so that the mob of people living in a single state can't trample on the rights of people in Missouri, for instance, to legislate their own damn state.

Except you fail to realize the created power dynamic by that. Using your own example, Missouri now gets to legislate everyone
It doesn't create equal power from majority to somehow in-between. It takes power of the majority and puts in the hand of the minority. And you know what is a minority of people in other places?
Kings, Queens.
I didn't sign that constitution. The majority of people, didn't sign onto having a right wrongfully being taken away from them. That right? That states could never legislate body atomony.

 

[wartutor]

Ah so it's women's fault they can't safely walk the streets without fear of rape. I get ya. Totally not the fault of the actual rapists.

Victim blaming at its finest right there.

I did not one time blame the woman quit being rediculous i said she could of prevented it by shooting the rapest how the fuck you got that from what i said is the problem with liberals they read/hear what they want instead of what was wrote/said.