Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Why is the bible even relevant here? Who gives a flying **** what the bible says? The bible endorses slavery, who the **** cares what it has to say about anything?

Your over here trying to analyze and interpret its meanings when it shouldn't matter at all.

You don't see me over here quoting Harry Potter and how it relates to government policies. Like, we should be done even mentioning the bible when it comes to anything having to do with policy and government. The only time it should be mentioned is to defend peopel's right to read and worship it, otherwise, IDGAF what Numbers, Job, Joe, or Schmoe written thousands of years ago. Should not matter.

 

What we're pretty much hearing here is that women should pretty much never have sex since they are irresponsible when they have casual unprotected sex and also irresponsible when they have sex in committed and seeming loving relationship.

 

Interesting that @HTM didn't answer these questions.

I brought this up with him last time we were on this topic, he's just against non-marital sex period.

Obviously, people can have sex pretty reliably and not get pregnant. Pornstars have sex hundreds of times per year and don't get pregnant.

Obviously, THIS should be a talking point from the pro-life crowd. "Just use contraception!" and it would be a lot harder to argue against, but you never hear it from the pro-life crowd because it's actually about control and their march towards Christian Nationalism. I will force you to believe in my worldview!

 

Seems it would violate the commerce clause, if it doesn't they might as well throw out commerce altogether.

 

So you are supporting abortions then for poor people? Your logic is contradictory.

 

Although then again, if being a resident of another states overrides gun law's visiting another state...than it seems that commerce doesn't really matter.

I'm sure some on the far right would love to gut the commerce clause. That opens not only the appeal of any federal civil rights legislation, but could dismantle federal regulations, the highway system, and basically turn beet red states into fiefdoms. I don't trust this SCOTUS, but I would hope that they could realize the potential for what a commerce clause less US looks like.

 

I'm not trying to know you, you're showing your hand here by what you write.

You are not having women and children in mind. You're acting like a nanny and saying, "Hey guys, I know what's best for you. Sex is bad for you unless you can afford to have kids. If you are poor, you shouldn't have sex. Why? Because it may cause you anguish if your birth control fails. It might give you a regrettable decision. So I'm going to decide for you - don't have sex because it's not worth dealing with the chance of an abortion."

Your statements about the Marquis' De Sade - "it's just a clump of cells" reveals you believe it's more. It's exposing your underlying religious beliefs that are underlying your positions (which make no sense without religion). That's why I say you are debating here disingenuously.

 

Biden calls for filibuster carveout to protect abortion rights

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...libuster-carveout-to-protect-abortion-rights/

 

Pretty sure he's saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have sex because they're poor and can't afford a baby.

 

Joe Biden Will Meet With Democrat Governors to Devise Plan to Kill More Babies in Abortions

Joe Biden plans to meet with pro-abortion Democrat governors Friday to discuss ways to keep unborn babies being killed in abortions now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Axios reports the president scheduled the meeting right after he returns from his European trip. It did not mention how many governors have been invited or who plans to attend.

In a historic ruling last week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe and returned the abortion issue to the states. Immediately afterward, some states took action to protect unborn babies from abortion while others did the opposite.

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, for example, issued an executive order banning state agencies from using “time, money or other resources” to help pro-life states prosecute abortionists who break their laws. In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers called a special session to repeal the state pre-Roe state abortion ban, but the legislature rejected it. Both are Democrats.

Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed spending an additional $145 million specifically for abortions in his annual budget plan. The money would be used to fund elective abortions for women whose insurance does not cover it, government promotion of abortion, travel and lodging expenses for women who have to travel for abortions and incentives for medical students to become abortionists.

Oregon lawmakers also budgeted $15 million to expand abortions in their state this year.

In California and Vermont, lawmakers also passed proposed constitutional amendments to enshrine the so-called “right” to abort unborn babies in their state constitutions. Voters will have the chance to reject or approve the amendments on the ballot in November.

Last week, Biden decried the Supreme Court ruling Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health as “extreme” and “un-American” because it allows states to protect unborn babies from abortion again. “It’s a sad day for the country in my view, but it doesn’t mean the fight’s over,” Biden said.

He urged Congress to pass an extreme pro-abortion bill that would force states to legalize abortion on demand again and force taxpayers to pay for abortions. The Democrat-controlled U.S. House passed the bill, but the U.S. Senate narrowly rejected it in September.

 

It's obvious to me you're just completely ignoring what I'm saying and just repeating your same position over and over. If you think your Ex is in no way responsible for the sh**y situation she found herself in... that's crazy but that's your right.

 

It's a common attempt in these boards for people to 1. Claim you said things you didn't like @Sweet Lou 4 2 does pretty much every post or 2. Not address the issue at hand and take the conversation somewhere they would prefer to like @durvasa @AkeemTheDreem86 attempt to do. I won't let them.

 

I mean, that's not what I said but go off. You're just ignoring what I write, repeating yourself and being a child now.

I figured you'd be better then most here but I guess I was wrong.

 

It just doesn't make any sense. If I pass a law in NY, that law isn't enforceable in Alabama. You can't regulate what goes on in other states. If they don't strike down a law that tries to do that, then they should debar all the Justices.

 

I don't see how this works, when you weren't willing to do it for voting rights. It seems like if you're willing to do filibuster carveouts, voting rights would be #1.

 

I'm not sure about the version you guys are discussing, but some states are modelling legislation around Texas' whole "you can sue someone who helps someone go get an abortion (now also across the state lines)" concept. So that makes it a legal gray area until someone puts a stop to the whole citizens-suing-to-enforce-laws concept. If a state does this, I would have California or NY or someone pass a law allowing someone to sue to anyone who sues someone for helping someone get an abortion. Or sue anyone who helps someone get a gun - there's no Constitutional right to help someone else bear arms.

 

Ah capitalism at its finest. Sex only for the rich. Bravo

 

edit

 

The issue at hand, if I am following correctly, is you said people shouldn't be having sex unless they have the ability to take care of the child that might result. I just asked if you would have an issue with consenting adults having sex for its own sake if there's no possibility of a child resulting from it. If the answer is "yes", that would change my understanding of your position. Seemed on-topic to me.