Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Alito sworn in as Supreme Court Justice

Why must you even hint of the plan? Can't you keep it to yourself? I swear, I'm going to have your card making you an official member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy revoked if you don't knock that shit off. :rwmad:
 
Ha Ha, guys. :P

Just hope Roe v Wade is never in danger of being overturned. Oh, I'll be one unhappy gal then... ;)
 
Like I said before, Roe vs. Wade really should be overturned. It's bad law, and its Constitutionality is questionable at best.

Classic example of legislation from the bench.
 
We've discussed this before, Number_6.

The overturning of that law will mean the return of back alley abortions, and more deaths due to them. I did read that article you put up previously. It stated that the number of deaths due to illegal abortions was raised astronomically from 250 per year, for propaganda purposes.

As if 250 women dying a year can be easily dismissed.

Number_6, would the fact that it was only 250 women a year be any comfort to you if one of those women was your sister...or cousin...or wife?
 
Too bad. Maybe women will think twice before engaging in risky sexual activity, rather than relying on abortions.

And if you read that article, you'd know that "back alley abortions" is a bullshit phrase. Most abortions were being performed by the same doctors who perform them now, just in secret, and not in "back alleys."

It's a bad law. And its existence prevents any real discussion on the matter of abortion from ever taking place. And as a society, we need to have that discussion.
 
THAT, I completely agree with.

And, wasn't RvW just about who has the legislative decision on the legality?
States V Federal?
 
Number_6 said:
Too bad. Maybe women will think twice before engaging in risky sexual activity, rather than relying on abortions.
"Paging Number_6. Real World calling..."
Those who seek abortions do not primarily come from that group of women who practice "risky sexual activity". What about the woman who finds herself in a medically precarious position due to pregnancy? What about that woman who did use contraception, but it was defective?

Lumping all these women into the category of "risky sexual activity" is short sighted and damned unfair.

And if you read that article, you'd know that "back alley abortions" is a bullshit phrase. Most abortions were being performed by the same doctors who perform them now, just in secret, and not in "back alleys."
Spoken like a man. And...don't go there.

It's a bad law. And its existence prevents any real discussion on the matter of abortion from ever taking place. And as a society, we need to have that discussion.
Abortion is talked about all the time. I don't know where this piece of unsubstantiated fact comes from.
 
Blindgroping said:
THAT, I completely agree with.

And, wasn't RvW just about who has the legislative decision on the legality?
States V Federal?
Yes. My concern is the unavailability of the procedure to those women who can't afford to cross state lines.
 
Number_6 said:
Too bad. Maybe women will think twice before engaging in risky sexual activity, rather than relying on abortions.

Ouch! That's a sweeping statement, especially since a woman's body is made to get pregnant. You're saying all sexual activity would be risky then? So, women shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to take responsibility for the possibility of children? Interesting. Not that I disagree mind you, I think such a philosophy from women would definitely put the power back into the hands of women.. But it's unusual for a man to propose a POV that would limit his sexual options.


It's a bad law. And its existence prevents any real discussion on the matter of abortion from ever taking place. And as a society, we need to have that discussion.

Whether or not is it bad law on decided on shaky grounds, it's been law for so long it now has legs of its own. That's the inherent social problem. Turning the clock back just isn't as easy as some would like to present it. It might sound easy, but it isn't.

It's public policy. Policy that women will not take lightly to being denied. The political party that takes it away, might as well sign it's own death warrant. The GOP will do well to keep this a talking point, but never, ever over turn it. It keeps the GOP polarized under this one umbrella without ever losing the Pro-choice Republicans.
 
Number_6 said:
Like I said before, Roe vs. Wade really should be overturned. It's bad law, and its Constitutionality is questionable at best.

Classic example of legislation from the bench.

I completey agree. Hopefully we'll now get the opportunity to reverse that abomination of a decision from the Supreme Court dark ages (same era as Imminent domain issues and the declartion the obscenity is illegal).
 
Friday said:
Ha Ha, guys. :P

Just hope Roe v Wade is never in danger of being overturned. Oh, I'll be one unhappy gal then... ;)

It will be amusing to see news footage of female protesters with huge NOW signs sobbing because they no longer have Federal support for killing their children.
 
Caitriona said:
It's public policy. Policy that women will not take lightly to being denied. The political party that takes it away, might as well sign it's own death warrant. The GOP will do well to keep this a talking point, but never, ever over turn it. It keeps the GOP polarized under this one umbrella without ever losing the Pro-choice Republicans.

You hit the nail on the head. Even the most conservative (and I'm not talking about "extreme" Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists) Republican will admit that overturning Roe v. Wade would be political suicide. While 60% of Americans disagree with the practice of abortion, a clear majority don't debate the legality of abortion. The GOP is merely happy to rile a few Extreme Left Wing Liberals with the hint that it might be overturned. Their "righteous indignation" at the merest suggestion that they not be allowed to kill their children provides more ammo for Republicans and right-leaning moderates to attack the vocal minority and paint them as the majority voice of Liberalism.

You know, kind of the way the Liberals claim that Right Wing Fundies represent the majority of all Republicans. ;)
 
Big Dick McGee said:
It will be amusing to see news footage of female protesters with huge NOW signs sobbing because they no longer have Federal support for killing their children.
I'll give ya a shout out... ;)

That all depends on when you think life begins in the womb. That has never been determined conclusively.
 
Sure it has. Read Number 6's article.

I find it highly unlikely that, in this day and age of Ultrasound, 3-D imaging, and incredibly advancements in medical technology that people still say that life doesn't begin in the womb.

I'd like to know, is there a National Average for what week most abortions take place? Because it sometimes takes you two months to realize you're pregnant, based on how irregular your cycle is. My wife knew almost immediately that she was pregnant, we could pinpoint the day (our familes are both very fertile. However TWO of her friend had such unusual period schedules that they didn't know they were pregnant until the seventh week.

If you think a fetus isn't alive at seven weeks, you're living in denial in order to support your feminist empowerment agenda.
 
Top