BREAKING: SCOTUS to overturn Roe?

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

 

So, where in the Constitution is the word AR-15?

 

Your argument is that abortion is not in the Constitution yet neither is AR-15.

 

Keep spinning... this is fun.

 

 

 

 

Why do you keep changing the question? If you don't like the answer to the original question perhaps you should examine why that is rather than play silly games.

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@Tiberius has declared that he will speak for all

women, especially those confused on what they think. 

 

Isn't that EXACTLY what you are doing?

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Assaulting…the capital?  Beyond the  obvious “Huh??”…
 

It seems extreme, the death part, if that’s really your take.  
 

On the other hand, some kids were vandalizing the local Friendly’s not long ago and shooting them would probably be an effective deterrent. 

 

 

So you want the cop that blasted her arrested? 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, LeviF said:

 

Why do you keep changing the question? If you don't like the answer to the original question perhaps you should examine why that is rather than play silly games.

 

My question has not changed once.

 

41 minutes ago, BillStime said:

I couldn’t find AR-15 in the Constitution… could you?

 

You are trying real hard to distant yourself from the fact that you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest.

 

It's hilarious watching you project about who exactly is doing what here - lolz

 

[B-Man]

 

[LeviF]

Just now, BillStime said:

 

My question has not changed once.

 

 

You are trying real hard to distant yourself from the fact that you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest.

 

It's hilarious watching you project about who exactly is doing what here - lolz

 

 

And the answer to that question is still "yes."

 

But then you change the question. You add caveats and qualifiers and pretend as if I'm the unreasonable one for asking that you just not. And ignore the fact that abortions legally fall under the same category as another example you provided yourself - stop signs - while firearms explicitly do not.

 

That the answers to the initial questions are inconvenient to your backwards political "thinking," if one can truly call it that, really isn't my problem.

 

If you wish to know my more complete thoughts on how the AR-15 is found in the Constitution, we have a reasonably active gun thread in this subforum that you may ask your silly questions in. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

The religious right and the cult want you to believe this but VERY few people are advocating for late term abortions unless there are severe fetal abnormalities or the health of the mother is at risk.

 

Keep fringing! 

 

 

I could tell you about the wife of a co-worker that was 2 months pregnant when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor.  The doctors told her the treatments would hurt the fetus and likely lead to its death.  But to save her life they were necessary.  But she refused treatment and her condition worsened.  She carried the child and gave birth.  But by then it was too late to address the tumor and she died a few months later.  Now that's conviction to a belief and the ultimate sacrifice.  So she saved the baby.  But she also left her husband a widower and two other children motherless.  So there's a lot of sides to the story and lessons to be learned from it.  As there is to the stories of countless other women faced with specific circumstances.    

 

But I'm not sure even read my entire post.  I ended my comment with  I expect, somewhere in the middle (of the extreme polar views) is the answer and the position of most women, and dare I suggest men too.

 

So why are you arguing with me?  Because there's nothing to argue about.  I'm merely laying out the positions at both extremes.  They are what they are.  Are you unwilling to accept there can be an acceptable middle ground consensus the majority of Americans can get behind? 

Edited May 6, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[716er]

2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Are you unwilling to accept there can be an acceptable middle ground consensus the majority of Americans can get behind? 

 

That middle ground is Roe. Over 70% of Americans are behind that decision.

Edited May 6, 2022 by 716er

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

And the answer to that question is still "yes."

 

But then you change the question. You add caveats and qualifiers and pretend as if I'm the unreasonable one for asking that you just not. And ignore the fact that abortions legally fall under the same category as another example you provided yourself - stop signs - while firearms explicitly do not.

 

That the answers to the initial questions are inconvenient to your backwards political "thinking," if one can truly call it that, really isn't my problem.

 

If you wish to know my more complete thoughts on how the AR-15 is found in the Constitution, we have a reasonably active gun thread in this subforum that you may ask your silly questions in. 

 

My question did not change - the problem is - you are struggling because you cannot find the word AR-15 in the Constitution.

 

And you won't let go...

 

lmao

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So you want the cop that blasted her arrested? 

It was my understanding he shot her because he feared his life was in danger, and the video I’ve seen makes me think he did.  So, no, I think he was given the benefit of the doubt and should not be arrested.  I think that approach should apply outside of the Capital police but sadly it does not.  
 

If you’ve seen indication he acknowledged he shot her because she climbed on a table, or broke a chair,  then he should be prosecuted. 

I am concerned that the government has withheld hours of footage from that day, and believe the potential for a coverup is quite high.   
 

I’m also disappointed that elected officials in harms way seem to have very little tolerance for potential for violence against them, yet an inordinate amount of patience, tolerance when law abiding citizens and law enforcement officials are targeted outside Washington.  
 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

20 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

That middle ground is Roe. Over 70% of Americans are behind that decision.

If you read the Roe v. Wade ruling and conclusions its references the due process clause of the 14th amendment as covering a women's right to abortion but also gets into specific details such as specific treatment based on the specific trimester.  Then in 1992 the court ruled again and modified the ruling by dropping the trimester approach for one of fetal viability.  Doesn't that all sound "legislativish"?  Because by the nature of our Republic form of government and the Constitutional powers of each branch the judicial does not make law.   

 

If the current court lets the previous rulings stand then fine.  But if the court rules the previous decision was judicial activism and overreach and throws it back to the Federal and State legislatures then it should be simple to get a majority of representatives to codify the conclusions. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[BillStime]

The GQP Hypocrisy is endless...

 

 

[B-Man]

7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

If the current court lets the previous rulings stand then fine.  But if the court rules the previous decision was judicial activism and overreach and throws it back to the Federal and State legislatures then it should be simple to get a majority of representatives to codify the conclusions. 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

That's funny 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

That's funny 

 

Seriously, these idiots cannot even see how hypocritical they are... 

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Seriously, these idiots cannot even see how hypocritical they are... 

Own the libs! That's all that matters 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

Well, Conald wanted to shoot AMERICAN protestors outside the White House... so, I wouldn't put it past the Cult.

 

So says you, but you’re an 0fer.  

[BillStime]

54 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I could tell you about the wife of a co-worker that was 2 months pregnant when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor.  The doctors told her the treatments would hurt the fetus and likely lead to its death.  But to save her life they were necessary.  But she refused treatment and her condition worsened.  She carried the child and gave birth.  But by then it was too late to address the tumor and she died a few months later.  Now that's conviction to a belief and the ultimate sacrifice.  So she saved the baby.  But she also left her husband a widower and two other children motherless.  So there's a lot of sides to the story and lessons to be learned from it.  As there is to the stories of countless other women faced with specific circumstances.    

 

But I'm not sure even read my entire post.  I ended my comment with  I expect, somewhere in the middle (of the extreme polar views) is the answer and the position of most women, and dare I suggest men too.

 

So why are you arguing with me?  Because there's nothing to argue about.  I'm merely laying out the positions at both extremes.  They are what they are.  Are you unwilling to accept there can be an acceptable middle ground consensus the majority of Americans can get behind? 

 

Sorry to hear about that gut wrenching story. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

Isn't that EXACTLY what you are doing?

 

 

 

 

 

This is the silliest argument on this issue.   Men and women collectively vote for the rules that govern all. 
 

In states with liberal abortion laws, the laws typically do not offer unrestricted abortion access from conception to birth, though obviously some advocate for that option.  Some have advocated for termination up to and beyond birth as you well know. 
 

One of the common refrains of the Pro Choice community is about pregnancy that results from sexual assault and/or *****.   If the issue is ultimately about complete autonomy and a woman’s right to choose, why saddle a patient with the need to disclose such a traumatic event to anyone?  
 

For many reasonable pro choice people, it’s freedom of choice…to a point. 
 

As far as I am concerned, I won’t take a place in the corner with you if you feel you don’t have a write to speak or vote.  That just makes you of weak character, and I’m not interested in that.  

At the same time, I recognize that decisions that impact me personally—from my own health choices to the fruits of my labor—are determined in large part by the votes of all citizens, many of whom are women.  That’s not bad always, or good always, it just is.  
 

Finally, I’m a pro-choice conservative who has simply acknowledged what we all know is true.  Roe v Wade is problematic and creates chaos and tension each time it comes up.  Of Roe V Wade wasn’t problematic—something that could have been fixed in the last 50 years—we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 
 

Suggesting that the issue simply remains status quo deprives women (specifically) a seat at the table when it comes to abortion.  A women who is pro-life may well have something to offer and may well choose to share her voice in the ballot box.  
 

Tibs has an old school male attitude and he’s trapped in a new age body.  

[SoCal Deek]

23 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is the silliest argument on this issue.   Men and women collectively vote for the rules that govern all. 
 

In states with liberal abortion laws, the laws typically do not offer unrestricted abortion access from conception to birth, though obviously some advocate for that option.  Some have advocated for termination up to and beyond birth as you well know. 
 

One of the common refrains of the Pro Choice community is about pregnancy that results from sexual assault and/or *****.   If the issue is ultimately about complete autonomy and a woman’s right to choose, why saddle a patient with the need to disclose such a traumatic event to anyone?  
 

For many reasonable pro choice people, it’s freedom of choice…to a point. 
 

As far as I am concerned, I won’t take a place in the corner with you if you feel you don’t have a write to speak or vote.  That just makes you of weak character, and I’m not interested in that.  

At the same time, I recognize that decisions that impact me personally—from my own health choices to the fruits of my labor—are determined in large part by the votes of all citizens, many of whom are women.  That’s not bad always, or good always, it just is.  
 

Finally, I’m a pro-choice conservative who has simply acknowledged what we all know is true.  Roe v Wade is problematic and creates chaos and tension each time it comes up.  Of Roe V Wade wasn’t problematic—something that could have been fixed in the last 50 years—we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 
 

Suggesting that the issue simply remains status quo deprives women (specifically) a seat at the table when it comes to abortion.  A women who is pro-life may well have something to offer and may well choose to share her voice in the ballot box.  
 

Tibs has an old school male attitude and he’s trapped in a new age body.  

We could have woman make laws for women but since the incoming Justice has no clue how to define one….women are SCREWED! 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

We could have woman make laws for women but since the incoming Justice has no clue how to define one….women are SCREWED! 

Well maybe once she figures it out, instead of the passive-aggressive argument that men shouldn’t have a say on anything women-specific, she should introduce a grass roots movement to segregate the vote to concerned parties only.  
 

 

[BillStime]

51 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is the silliest argument on this issue.   Men and women collectively vote for the rules that govern all. 
 

In states with liberal abortion laws, the laws typically do not offer unrestricted abortion access from conception to birth, though obviously some advocate for that option.  Some have advocated for termination up to and beyond birth as you well know. 
 

One of the common refrains of the Pro Choice community is about pregnancy that results from sexual assault and/or *****.   If the issue is ultimately about complete autonomy and a woman’s right to choose, why saddle a patient with the need to disclose such a traumatic event to anyone?  
 

For many reasonable pro choice people, it’s freedom of choice…to a point. 
 

As far as I am concerned, I won’t take a place in the corner with you if you feel you don’t have a write to speak or vote.  That just makes you of weak character, and I’m not interested in that.  

At the same time, I recognize that decisions that impact me personally—from my own health choices to the fruits of my labor—are determined in large part by the votes of all citizens, many of whom are women.  That’s not bad always, or good always, it just is.  
 

Finally, I’m a pro-choice conservative who has simply acknowledged what we all know is true.  Roe v Wade is problematic and creates chaos and tension each time it comes up.  Of Roe V Wade wasn’t problematic—something that could have been fixed in the last 50 years—we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 
 

Suggesting that the issue simply remains status quo deprives women (specifically) a seat at the table when it comes to abortion.  A women who is pro-life may well have something to offer and may well choose to share her voice in the ballot box.  
 

Tibs has an old school male attitude and he’s trapped in a new age body.  

Where have I advocated for unrestricted abortion?

 

And how the F can a woman have an abortion after the child is born? Seriously - what a pathetic talking point.

 

And yes - men shouldn’t be passing laws that manage a woman's uterus. I’ll pay attention to men when they pass a law mandating vasectomies - but that will never happen because this is not about infants - it’s about control; divide and political wins because your party can’t produce anything meaningful except tax cuts for the rich.

[B-Man]

2 hours ago, 716er said:

 

That middle ground is Roe. Over 70% of Americans are behind that decision.

 

Alito’s ruling is what most people want on abortion

by Timothy P. Carney

 

The Supreme Court may finally overturn Roe v. Wade and uphold Mississippi’s abortion law, banning almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

 

The news media and the Democrats want you to think this is an extreme position. It’s not. On both questions, Mississippi’s abortion law and the substance of Roe v. Wade, the draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito represents the majority view of U.S. residents.

 

Begin with the law in question here: Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. A very recent YouGov poll on abortion found that 21% would ban all abortions, an additional 20% would ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected (six weeks), another 13% would ban them after the first trimester (13 weeks), and an additional 10% would ban abortion after 15 weeks — which is what Mississippi does.

 

Add it together, and it means that 64% of people in the United States believe Mississippi’s law is either the right call or too liberal on abortion. To uphold this law is to side with the opinion of nearly two-thirds of America on abortion policy.

 

But Alito’s opinion wouldn’t end there. He would strike down Roe and thus return abortion to the states and to the democratic realm of lawmaking. Not everything should be subject to democracy, of course, which is why we have a Bill of Rights. But is it extreme to say, as Alito does, that abortion law shouldn’t be determined by the Supreme Court?

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/alitos-ruling-is-what-most-americans-want-on-abortion

 

 

 

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Alito’s ruling is what most people want on abortion

by Timothy P. Carney

 

The Supreme Court may finally overturn Roe v. Wade and uphold Mississippi’s abortion law, banning almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

 

The news media and the Democrats want you to think this is an extreme position. It’s not. On both questions, Mississippi’s abortion law and the substance of Roe v. Wade, the draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito represents the majority view of U.S. residents.

 

Begin with the law in question here: Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. A very recent YouGov poll on abortion found that 21% would ban all abortions, an additional 20% would ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected (six weeks), another 13% would ban them after the first trimester (13 weeks), and an additional 10% would ban abortion after 15 weeks — which is what Mississippi does.

 

Add it together, and it means that 64% of people in the United States believe Mississippi’s law is either the right call or too liberal on abortion. To uphold this law is to side with the opinion of nearly two-thirds of America on abortion policy.

 

But Alito’s opinion wouldn’t end there. He would strike down Roe and thus return abortion to the states and to the democratic realm of lawmaking. Not everything should be subject to democracy, of course, which is why we have a Bill of Rights. But is it extreme to say, as Alito does, that abortion law shouldn’t be determined by the Supreme Court?

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/alitos-ruling-is-what-most-americans-want-on-abortion

 

 

 

Tim, thanks for your opinion for a right wing rag. 
 

Meanwhile - yea let’s send it back to the states:

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

32 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Where have I advocated for unrestricted abortion?

I have no idea, but it’s Friday Funday and you could be day drinking. I’ll go with…

 

What is Topeka, Kansas.   Final answer. 

32 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

And how the F can a woman have an abortion after the child is born?

I know, it’s crazy right? But in the world of abortion/reproductive rights, people lose their minds, don’t they? 

32 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Seriously - what a pathetic talking point. 

If you don’t like to dance, don’t go to a ho-down. 

 

32 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

And yes - men shouldn’t be passing laws that manage a woman's uterus. I’ll pay attention to men when they pass a law mandating vasectomies - but that will never happen because this is not about infants - it’s about control; divide and political wins because your party can’t produce anything meaningful except tax cuts for the rich.

You’re doubling down on dumb here, BillSy.  I think you get all flustered when discussing areas of the anatomy typically covered by a bathing suit. 
 

Be that as it may, you are well within your rights to abdicate your right to an opinion and to sit quietly in the back while other, better people file in to cast their vote.   
 

 

 

[BillStime]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I have no idea, but it’s Friday Funday and you could be day drinking. I’ll go with…

 

What is Topeka, Kansas.   Final answer. 

I know, it’s crazy right? But in the world of abortion/reproductive rights, people lose their minds, don’t they? 

If you don’t like to dance, don’t go to a ho-down. 

 

You’re doubling down on dumb here, BillSy.  I think you get all flustered when discussing areas of the anatomy typically covered by a bathing suit. 
 

Be that as it may, you are well within your rights to abdicate your right to an opinion and to sit quietly in the back while other, better people file in to cast their vote.   
 

 

 

 

 

Why shouldn't men be forced to have vasectomies?  If you're trying to limit abortion this is the place to start.

 

If you're going to force women to carry a fetus beyond her will even in the case of death, rape or ***** - why shouldn't we nip this in the bud and pass laws that place responsibility right AT THE SOURCE?

 

Keep spinning away from men having any culpability in this...

 

 

 

[unbillievable]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well maybe once she figures it out, instead of the passive-aggressive argument that men shouldn’t have a say on anything women-specific, she should introduce a grass roots movement to segregate the vote to concerned parties only. 

 

I'm struggling to find any Men's issues that women are not allowed to comment on.

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

I'm struggling to find any Men's issues that women are not allowed to comment on.

I know my wife is prone to comment on literally everything I do. Does that count?  😂

[BillsFanNC]

 

[716er]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

Alito’s ruling is what most people want on abortion

by Timothy P. Carney

 

The Supreme Court may finally overturn Roe v. Wade and uphold Mississippi’s abortion law, banning almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

 

The news media and the Democrats want you to think this is an extreme position. It’s not. On both questions, Mississippi’s abortion law and the substance of Roe v. Wade, the draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito represents the majority view of U.S. residents.

 

Begin with the law in question here: Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. A very recent YouGov poll on abortion found that 21% would ban all abortions, an additional 20% would ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected (six weeks), another 13% would ban them after the first trimester (13 weeks), and an additional 10% would ban abortion after 15 weeks — which is what Mississippi does.

 

Add it together, and it means that 64% of people in the United States believe Mississippi’s law is either the right call or too liberal on abortion. To uphold this law is to side with the opinion of nearly two-thirds of America on abortion policy.

 

But Alito’s opinion wouldn’t end there. He would strike down Roe and thus return abortion to the states and to the democratic realm of lawmaking. Not everything should be subject to democracy, of course, which is why we have a Bill of Rights. But is it extreme to say, as Alito does, that abortion law shouldn’t be determined by the Supreme Court?

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/alitos-ruling-is-what-most-americans-want-on-abortion

 

 

 

 

hmm

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

 

Why shouldn't men be forced to have vasectomies?  If you're trying to limit abortion this is the place to start.

 

If you're going to force women to carry a fetus beyond her will even in the case of death, rape or ***** - why shouldn't we nip this in the bud and pass laws that place responsibility right AT THE SOURCE?

 

Keep spinning away from men having any culpability in this...

 

 

 

You’re approaching hysteria today.   I’m not forcing anyone to do anything.  I am actually encouraging you to continue on your on your journey of  voluntary emasculation when it comes to this and any issue involving women.  
 

Feel free to start now.  
 

In your example, the reality is that vasectomies don’t guarantee a pregnancy won’t occur, and vasectomies can be reversed.  I’m actually embarrassed to have to teach you things you should have learned long before this.  
 

If you’re going to ride a slow horse in a fast race, you’ll want to advocate for mandatory castration.  Of course, being squeamish about having opinions, you’ll want the vote to limited to men only. 
 

Good luck to you sir.  
 

To reiterate, I support a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.  
 

I also support every person’s right to vote, even the scaredy-cats like you.  
 

On the federal level, write the law so the law sticks.  
 

On the state level, discuss, debate, and resolve based on the will of the people.  
 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, unbillievable said:

 

I'm struggling to find any Men's issues that women are not allowed to comment on.

Some folks like Billsy are so convinced that they have no right to an opinion that they’ll scream that opinion at the top of their lungs.  
 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Some folks like Billsy are so convinced that they have no right to an opinion that they’ll scream that opinion at the top of their lungs.  
 

 

 

Oh - I have an opinion - you just don’t like it.

 

Women have a right to privacy and make choices about their body - no male should be passing laws making choices for women without taking responsibility for their role in the process.

 

I’m sorry you feel so emasculated for being told to get a vasectomy.

 

I’m sure you feel all manly imposing your beliefs on others:

 

[SoCal Deek]

29 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Oh - I have an opinion - you just don’t like it.

 

Women have a right to privacy and make choices about their body - no male should be passing laws making choices for women without taking responsibility for their role in the process.

 

I’m sorry you feel so emasculated for being told to get a vasectomy.

 

I’m sure you feel all manly imposing your beliefs on others:

 

So your solution to the issue it to end the human race? Okie Dokie…seems a bit extreme, but you’re entitled to your opinion I guess. Both you and Joy Behar. 

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So your solution to the issue it to end the human race? Okie Dokie…seems a bit extreme, but you’re entitled to your opinion I guess. Both you and Joy Behar. 

Oh no - the vasectomy can be reversed when you can prove you are ready to be a father and the government sees you as fit - duh.

 

lmao - idiots 

[SoCal Deek]

18 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Oh no - the vasectomy can be reversed when you can prove you are ready to be a father and the government sees you as fit - duh.

 

lmao - idiots 

Good to know

Will Mary Poppins head this new social engineering agency too? She’s the expert of the week, right?

[BillStime]

On 5/6/2022 at 5:40 PM, SoCal Deek said:

Good to know

Will Mary Poppins head this new social engineering agency too? She’s the expert of the week, right?

So you’re ok with states passing laws controlling women and placing bounties on anyone who has/assists w an abortion but we couldn’t possibly impose anything on men, right?

 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by BillStime

[SoCal Deek]

12 minutes ago, BillStime said:

So you’re ok with states passing laws controlling women and placing bounties on anyone who has/assists w an abortion but we couldn’t possibly impose anything on men, right?

 

foh

Not sure what you’re prattling on about now but every day you’re becoming a more  ridiculous person.