Good - hopefully this wil be your last post on the matter. Now go away and try not to get into a position where you can get some girl preggers and then try to coerce her into killing her unborn child.
Sounds like projection, you should get that checked. Or better yet, know that most of my generation, don't plan on having children.
I don't speak woke, so when I read the first part of your post my eyes glazed over. The secone part where you say that people in you generation don't plan on having kids - I take it you mean people in your circle of friends. Because people in Africa, Asia and everywhere else that have not been infected by wokeness will be having kids. Still it will be no loss to the gene pool if you and your friends don't reproduce - in fact you should probably get yourself steralised/snipped just incase you "accidentaly" get yourself or some poor girl preggers.
Sorry, but science doesn't work like that. Unless your telling me you identify everyone by their crotch with a thorough investigation of their pants.
You're confusing science with feelings. I can dress up as a clown and wear big shoes, a red wig and paint my face white and kids would point at me and say - "look mummy a clown". When I took the makeup off, the wig off and had a shower, I would not look like a clown anymore, infact I would just look like a random dude. It's the same thing with anyone pretending to be something they are not.
Nah I think you are here
Science does actually back trans people as there have been numerous studies on brain chemistry of trans people. If you put a cis woman and a trans woman (a born man who identifies as a woman) their brain structure is almost exactly alike. This is further backed by the fact that men and women on the base level have distinctly different brain structures, so for a trans woman's brain to be identical to a cis woman just shows that it isn't always as people like to say a "mental illness".
What does that have to do with whether Roe was constitutional or not? Pleasing people is not the SCOTUS’ job, their job is to determine constitutionality.
My feelings aren't hurt, I could not care less if you identify as a sausage or a tin or beans or whatever you want. I won't ever hang about with anyone that has these mental issues and will avoid them and not converse with them If I saw them when I was out and about. I won't be gaslighted by the MSM or any political agenda either - I call a spade a spade and don't pander to the woke.
It was previously constitutional, until we had a minority party pack the courts into their favor. So no it's not their job to please people, but at the same time, as a document that has to be you know interpreted,suddenly just revoking a right made 50 years ago. And there is now a precedent to repeal constitutional rights. Gay marriage, contraceptives, and EPA regulations. Are all things they are itching to undo. Those rights (contraceptives in particular) go even further into history.
It was never constitutional, the previous decision was erroneous. That’s what repeal means. You can’t say “it was constitutional” on the basis of a decision that was incorrect. Upon further examination the justification was inadequate and the decision was overturned.
Yeah by a minority party that does not represent the majority. If the majority of people interprets the constitution in one particular way, then the court should reflect that. You can say "well it's not in the constitution" but nor does the modern right to arms is represented in the second amendment. That came from interpretation.
You just side step the entire fact this is a minority party. That's like if the dems packed the courts, and made some ruling that made it impossible for most people to get arms because they pulled some ancient ruling from the 1900's out of their ass and overturned it. Sure the right to bear arms is still there, but now the scope of it is heavily limited. No one would be on board with it and would de-legitimize the court.. Apply this exact thinking but with Roe v Wade. Yeah sure you can say "it got overturned, it was a wrong ruling" but that's nonsense and we both know it.
The political affiliation of the judges has no impact on whether something is constitutional or not.
Just continues to side step the fact the entire point of the argument. In a perfect world, where there is no political gaming of the system, then sure. But that's not what happened. Those three justices Trump appointed all said they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade. And look where we are now. So no, this was a political move, and the affiliation matters, and it would be stupid to call it anything other than that.
the second amendment also guarontees US citizens to form a well armed army of citizens incase a autocrat assumes power unchecked basicly discharging any treason charge that may happen so if trump became (or becomes in 2024) a dictator we could fight without fear of getting the needle
