BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2024, 01:38:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS  (Read 12436 times)
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,284
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
« on: May 19, 2021, 12:28:28 AM »

They aren't going to ban abortion or completely overturn Roe v. Wade.

Most likely scenario is they allow some of the restrictions red states are trying to pass through, but it will have little practical effect because those states have already minimized abortion access through various means anyway. Blue states will still be free to keep things as they are with no significant changes.

That's my prediction, anyway.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,284
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2021, 12:39:11 AM »

Everyone here is mad at RBG, but who you should REALLY be mad at is Anthony Kennedy. That asshole is still alive, but voluntarily retired KNOWING that Donald f--king Trump would appoint his replacement.

I agree RBG should have retired while Obama was still president, but I can't totally blame her for wanting to hold out for the poetry of being replaced by the first female president (and also the wife of the man who appointed her!). Was it worth the risk? No. Can I at least see why she did it? Yeah. Especially considering few thought Trump actually could win at the time.

Kennedy however just completely threw the social liberals he had been helping under the bus, basically. He did it knowingly and deliberately, seemingly with no care at all for whether all the decisions he had passionately defended would be undone or not. Makes you question his entire motives from start to finish.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,284
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2021, 12:41:55 AM »

Before I explain why your analogy doesn't work, let's hear an actual response to the thought experiment I presented.
You asked what one would do, rather than what one should do; you failed to demonstrate that a woman getting an abortion was choosing to save one born baby’s life over a thousand unborn baby’s life; and you completely failed to finish your postulation with priors or posteriors.

If I say you shouldn’t beat dogs, and then you say “But you wouldn’t stop someone from beating a dog if the building were on fire!!” you haven’t really addressed the moral validity of beating a dog. Rather, you would have demonstrated that you’re uncomfortable with defending dog beating and attempted to make me feel uncomfortable for opposing it.

So, you STILL haven't answered the question...
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.