DUMP THREAD V.9: SZN OVER

[rossihunter2]

Small govt conservatives hate it cuz federal funds are directed to it. That makes taxpayers involved. You are paying for somebodies decision 99% of the time. Some women use it multiple times. Oops I did it again. *runs to abortion clinic*. People need to be responsible on their own for what they do.

so they're worried about some tax payer money being directed to healthcare facilities
but not worried about trillions of dollars spent on the military...

 

[rossihunter2]

There’s no proof that voting works? Cool story…. down with the patriarchy comrade.

i just mean to say that it's not as simple as just voting...

obviously this wouldnt even be happening if the republican base didnt vote every time... i just mean that it's pretty telling that all of this is happening despite the democrats holding both chambers and the presidency (and i understand that the senate is complicated with manchin etc.)

 

[BoredMarine13]

it is blatant brainwashed far-right propaganda to consider that anyone is advocating for the termination of viable foetuses in the third trimester or even in the second... the only times where you will see anyone advocate for those sorts of procedures is in severe health scenarios e.g. a threat to the mother's life

Might want to step out of your echo chambers for a moment and look at some of the states websites…..Several states offer abortion services until the end of the 6 month mark and leave vague language allowing for an abortion beyond that point.

so they're worried about some tax payer money being directed to healthcare facilities
but not worried about trillions of dollars spent on the military...

Lol to be fair i don’t think many Americans really give a shit about government spending as long as they are allowed to live happy lives inside their little bubble. I am quite frustrated by this and have a front row seat to endless fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government. Whoooooole lotta money being delivered directly to foreign partners as well……..Just imagine if we actually invested that money into a dying city like Baltimore and helped people climb out of poverty.

i just mean to say that it's not as simple as just voting...

obviously this wouldnt even be happening if the republican base didnt vote every time... i just mean that it's pretty telling that all of this is happening despite the democrats holding both chambers and the presidency (and i understand that the senate is complicated with manchin etc.)

Nothing is black and white but team blue seems to really think so on most issues. The party for critical thinking seems to be a little off course these days. If people want change it starts with voting. People talk a big game on social media yet we only had 58% of the eligible voters show up to the polls last presidential election…. Outrage is cool, not so much voting

 

[cobrajet]

this is just patently false as we've discussed many times in this thread already

it is blatant brainwashed far-right propaganda to consider that anyone is advocating for the termination of viable foetuses in the third trimester or even in the second... the only times where you will see anyone advocate for those sorts of procedures is in severe health scenarios e.g. a threat to the mother's life

Evidently you did not hear the Governor of the State of Virginia talking about it. Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton even supports it. You dodged the question. If a woman decides she does not want her baby, where do you draw the line?

 

[Willbacker]

so they're worried about some tax payer money being directed to healthcare facilities
but not worried about trillions of dollars spent on the military...

Rossi until you understand the 10th amendment and how much the federal govt is delegated to have.................


http://www.libertyzone.org/18-Enumerated-Powers.pdf

These are the 18 powers and taxing for the military is one of them. The rest goes to the states.

 

[cdp]

Evidently you did not hear the Governor of the State of Virginia talking about it. Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton even supports it. You dodged the question. If a woman decides she does not want her baby, where do you draw the line?

I'm not a doctor and feel free to correct me. We have 13 weeks which I think is fine. After that it's only legal if the would-be-mother is facing psychological or life threatening problems.

 

[Willbacker]

I'm not a doctor and feel free to correct me. We have 13 weeks which I think is fine. After that it's only legal if the would-be-mother is facing psychological or life threatening problems.

Since everybody has to be fairly governed that seems like a good middle ground to me but Congress has to pass for it to be nationwide. Not a judicial decision since those can always be revisited and overturned.

 

[Biff Tannen]

What's the over/under that another radical law will be overturned or changed by the end of this year? I think unfortunately the needle is probably more in the positive direction in regards to that.

As for me regarding abortion, I will be honest and say I am very much a Pro-Choice advocate.

 

[drjohnnyfever]

this is just patently false as we've discussed many times in this thread already

it is blatant brainwashed far-right propaganda to consider that anyone is advocating for the termination of viable foetuses in the third trimester or even in the second... the only times where you will see anyone advocate for those sorts of procedures is in severe health scenarios e.g. a threat to the mother's life

You are just not correct about the highlighted portion. You can say what you will about radical evangelicals, but their desire for total shut down of any terminations is exactly akin to what the radical left is advocating when they speak of a woman's right to choose, namely, unrestricted availability of abortions. I think what we're seeing here in our discussion is an agreement that there needs to be some prudence practiced in finding what the middle ground is to those two radical and irresponsible extremes.

I'm convinced the reason the Court overturned Roe is that they felt it was time they stop trying to legislate by constantly taking cases to either widen this scope or narrow that. Their job is not to legislate. Their job is to adjudicate. By overturning it they put the responsibility on legislators both federally and on the state level. With roughly 70% of the US supporting some kind of reasonable abortion statute, the time has come for legislators to do their job or be replaced.

 

[drjohnnyfever]

What's the over/under that another radical law will be overturned or changed by the end of this year? I think unfortunately the needle is probably more in the positive direction in regards to that.

As for me regarding abortion, I will be honest and say I am very much a Pro-Choice advocate.

Well, the week before they officially announced Roe being overturned, they overturned a gun law that effectively restricted most people from being able to acquire conceal carry permits. Does that count? But again, that's a case of something they have ruled upon and ruled upon for decades, effectively creating the law where I think they had just had enough and reversed to put it in the laps of legislators.

The reality in all of this is the Court has done a really good job of paving the way for legislation in both of these issues. All the legislative clerks need to do is begin writing bills that reflect the basic framework of the decisions the Court has made over the years. They have already done a pretty good job attempting to incorporate a great number of issues that have arisen as medicine and technology has changed. But it's in the Legislatures' hands now.

 

[Biff Tannen]

Well, the week before they officially announced Roe being overturned, they overturned a gun law that effectively restricted most people from being able to acquire conceal carry permits. Does that count? But again, that's a case of something they have ruled upon and ruled upon for decades, effectively creating the law where I think they had just had enough and reversed to put it in the laps of legislators.

The reality in all of this is the Court has done a really good job of paving the way for legislation in both of these issues. All the legislative clerks need to do is begin writing bills that reflect the basic framework of the decisions the Court has made over the years. They have already done a pretty good job attempting to incorporate a great number of issues that have arisen as medicine and technology has changed. But it's in the Legislatures' hands now.

Some good points pal. Will be interesting going forward legislature wise for sure.

 

[Nurps]

Aaaaaaaand, just like that prayer is back in public schools

Supreme Court Grants Victory to Reintroduction of Prayer in Public Schools

The Supreme Court ruled that public school officials violated the First Amendment rights of a football coach who led students in prayer.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[rossihunter2]

Rossi until you understand the 10th amendment and how much the federal govt is delegated to have.................


http://www.libertyzone.org/18-Enumerated-Powers.pdf

These are the 18 powers and taxing for the military is one of them. The rest goes to the states.

i understand that... i just dont see how people can complain about tax payer money going to women's healthcare when trillions of it goes to the military

that was my point

but if that's too finnicky for you because of the 10th amendment - what about all the corporate subsidies that companies like amazon get?

 

[rossihunter2]

You are just not correct about the highlighted portion. You can say what you will about radical evangelicals, but their desire for total shut down of any terminations is exactly akin to what the radical left is advocating when they speak of a woman's right to choose, namely, unrestricted availability of abortions. I think what we're seeing here in our discussion is an agreement that there needs to be some prudence practiced in finding what the middle ground is to those two radical and irresponsible extremes.

I'm convinced the reason the Court overturned Roe is that they felt it was time they stop trying to legislate by constantly taking cases to either widen this scope or narrow that. Their job is not to legislate. Their job is to adjudicate. By overturning it they put the responsibility on legislators both federally and on the state level. With roughly 70% of the US supporting some kind of reasonable abortion statute, the time has come for legislators to do their job or be replaced.

the court overturned Roe because it's become a highly politicised body with a supermajority with zero accountability
they did it because that has been the singular intent of one side of the aisle since the initial roe v wade decision

you can argue for sure that legislators should have done more/should do more - i agree with you - but to suggest the court's decision is based in anything except extreme political partisanship is naive

as for the highlighted portion you say is incorrect... show me evidence of "radical left" pro-choice activists advocating for third trimester abortions outside of medical emergency scenarios - no one is advocating for that because they don't happen... you’re asking about a mostly fabricated situation invented as a distraction to mislead voters about what’s true and real because the idea of "late-term abortions" is an emotionally inciteful one

 

[BoredMarine13]

as for the highlighted portion you say is incorrect... show me evidence of "radical left" pro-choice activists advocating for third trimester abortions outside of medical emergency scenarios - no one is advocating for that because they don't happen... you’re asking about a mostly fabricated situation invented as a distraction to mislead voters about what’s true and real because the idea of "late-term abortions" is an emotionally inciteful one

First it was “blatantly brainwashed propaganda” from conservatives and” No one is advocating for 2nd/3rd trimester abortions”…..well a two second google search proved you wrong. Now it’s “mostly fabricated “ lol. It’s almost like your full of shit and incable of putting aside bias

You claim moral superiority and to be intolerant to intolerance , yet you’ve been living in the same echo chamber for years putting up a wall of ignorance.

 

[drjohnnyfever]

the court overturned Roe because it's become a highly politicised body with a supermajority with zero accountability
they did it because that has been the singular intent of one side of the aisle since the initial roe v wade decision

you can argue for sure that legislators should have done more/should do more - i agree with you - but to suggest the court's decision is based in anything except extreme political partisanship is naive

as for the highlighted portion you say is incorrect... show me evidence of "radical left" pro-choice activists advocating for third trimester abortions outside of medical emergency scenarios - no one is advocating for that because they don't happen... you’re asking about a mostly fabricated situation invented as a distraction to mislead voters about what’s true and real because the idea of "late-term abortions" is an emotionally inciteful one

Dude, as usual I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not your researcher. How you've come to your conclusions and beliefs, I guess is your business, but most, it seems, are based more on feeling or your desire to have things a certain way than on reality. Late term abortions are not an imaginary spectre. They are a real and horrifying thing, and while they don't happen nearly as often as a first trimester terminations, they do happen and happen when there is nothing wrong with the child as well as when there is. It's hard to argue that these terminations are not murder. But for a day, a few inches, they would be.

And respectfully, the only person becoming emotional in all this is you. Because people don't agree with what and how you're arguing, you have chosen to name call and incite in many of your responses. And to suggest that the Court's decision is to merely piss off a political opponent or to demonstrate some kind of power over an opposition, or political revenge of some sort - as you're stating- shows your own naivete - and seriously casts into doubt whether you are capable of having a reasonable discussion.

 

[rossihunter2]

First it was “blatantly brainwashed propaganda” from conservatives and” No one is advocating for 2nd/3rd trimester abortions”…..well a two second google search proved you wrong. Now it’s “mostly fabricated “ lol. It’s almost like your full of shit and incable of putting aside bias

You claim moral superiority and to be intolerant to intolerance , yet you’ve been living in the same echo chamber for years putting up a wall of ignorance.

clearly im stupid then - because i cant find anything from anyone advocating for that stuff - so im gonna need to see some links

and then im going to need to see some evidence to suggest that third trimester abortions are in any way common and in any way not related to medical complications...

ive most definitely not been in an echo chamber or i wouldnt be on this site - my upbringing did not lead me to my current politics, i was converted via life experiences, relationships, education, facts and evidence... they won the argument

 

[rossihunter2]

Dude, as usual I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not your researcher. How you've come to your conclusions and beliefs, I guess is your business, but most, it seems, are based more on feeling or your desire to have things a certain way than on reality. Late term abortions are not an imaginary spectre. They are a real and horrifying thing, and while they don't happen nearly as often as a first trimester terminations, they do happen and happen when there is nothing wrong with the child as well as when there is. It's hard to argue that these terminations are not murder. But for a day, a few inches, they would be.

And respectfully, the only person becoming emotional in all this is you. Because people don't agree with what and how you're arguing, you have chosen to name call and incite in many of your responses. And to suggest that the Court's decision is to merely piss off a political opponent or to demonstrate some kind of power over an opposition, or political revenge of some sort - as you're stating- shows your own naivete - and seriously casts into doubt whether you are capable of having a reasonable discussion.

to not see that the court's decision was a partisan overreach is to ignore the stated aims of one political party and their strategic and political aims of the last few decades - they packed the courts at all levels, and blocked the filling of a supreme court seat in an unprecedented move - to not see any of this as political wrangling to serve a political end is to be wilfully ignorant

ive not been emotional about any of this - i have referred to brainwashing and death cults which are the only things anyone has suggested as insulting

but ive still seen no evidence of these so-called "but for a day" abortions... if anyone's being emotional, it's you by using emotional language to try and win an argument by describing a procedure that does not exist

 

[drjohnnyfever]

clearly im stupid then - because i cant find anything from anyone advocating for that stuff - so im gonna need to see some links

and then im going to need to see some evidence to suggest that third trimester abortions are in any way common and in any way not related to medical complications...

ive most definitely not been in an echo chamber or i wouldnt be on this site - my upbringing did not lead me to my current politics, i was converted via life experiences, relationships, education, facts and evidence... they won the argument

to not see that the court's decision was a partisan overreach is to ignore the stated aims of one political party and their strategic and political aims of the last few decades - they packed the courts at all levels, and blocked the filling of a supreme court seat in an unprecedented move - to not see any of this as political wrangling to serve a political end is to be wilfully ignorant

ive not been emotional about any of this - i have referred to brainwashing and death cults which are the only things anyone has suggested as insulting

but ive still seen no evidence of these so-called "but for a day" abortions... if anyone's being emotional, it's you by using emotional language to try and win an argument by describing a procedure that does not exist

If you can't understand that unrestricted access and an unfettered right to choose would include under-any-circumstances late-term abortions you are indeed thick. That is what the radical left argues for. Just as all abortions are murder is what the lunatics on the far right argue. Clearly, the pro-choice camp is not going to say it specifically as we are discussing here, but that's how it HAS been employed when unrestricted. Not a lot, but enough to give a reasonable person a very sick feeling. Imagine the universal horror of that admission or demand in a debate. Please.

You can believe this is political on the part of the Court, but the reality is that the Court's job is not to legislate. Their job is to determine Constitutionality; which is why I have been saying from the beginning that it needs to be addressed in the form of a Constitutional Amendment, not just a Federal Statute. And it was a far more conservative Court that FOUND the right in the first place. Goodness. Apparently we have conspiracy theorist in our midst.

 

[BoredMarine13]

clearly im stupid then

Not stupid at all but clearly smug, lacking life experience, and the worst you think academic principals some how trump objective realities. I also think if we were to meet face to face you would immediately ditch this air of superiority and be a fun person to drink and have a conversation with.

ive most definitely not been in an echo chamber or i wouldnt be on this site -

It’s a site you visit to talk football, the conversation turned political and you got called out for a hypocritical stance… let’s not pat ourselves on the back to much Rossi.