Congratulations, you took freedom away…

Primavera said:
Well one, I doubt you knew any of that and two, receiving abortion pills by post is far harder to
police that closing down clinics.
Click to expand...

I did know that, and I understand that getting pills is much easier.

These are not an option for people who discover their fetus is not viable later in the pregnancy, but I do not understand what your post has to do with my point about the Right to Privacy.
 
Jarod said:
I did know that, and I understand that getting pills is much easier.

These are not an option for people who discover their fetus is not viable later in the pregnancy, but I do not understand what your post has to do with my point about the Right to Privacy.
Click to expand...

Easier for how long? This is what happens when Americans support policies that chip away at unalienable rights. Soon there are no rights left to chip away at.

I see both the Abortion Control and Gun Control advocates through the same lens: Both advocate reducing rights, not finding ways to increase them.

If the Left succeeded in banning ARs and high capacity (over 10 rounds) magazines, how soon before they start advocating "If limiting magazines to 10 rounds was good, then limiting them to 5 rounds is better"?

Is there any doubt, that the Right will use their success of Abortion Control to exert more control? Using the power of the Federal government to control abortion in all 50 states?

We, the People should be advocating for more Freedom, not less. No wonder most Americans believe our nation is on the wrong track.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html
Right Direction 22.7

Wrong Track 69.3
 
Hello Dutch,

Dutch Uncle said:
He's advocating shooting them in the streets. Mass murder like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

43sg4t.gif


https://www.britannica.com/place/India/Anti-British-activity#ref47052
Click to expand...

A misspelling. Got it.
 
Jarod said:
I did know that, and I understand that getting pills is much easier.

These are not an option for people who discover their fetus is not viable later in the pregnancy, but I do not understand what your post has to do with my point about the Right to Privacy.
Click to expand...

Oh and the FDA has relaxed the rules on abortion pills as well. All this hoohah about R v W has been made anachronistic but I doubt the Dems will tell you that they need to keep up the fear mongering.
 
Sawyerloggingon said:
His opinion not the written official ruling which clearly states it doesn't apply to marriage or contraception.
Click to expand...

That is not binding. I guess I have to explain it to you. The court CANNOT rule on an issue that is not in front of it. They could not issue a decision about contraception, or gay marriage, or interracial marriage unless that question was before the court. However, rather than issuing a narrow ruling on just the Mississippi law, they made a broad ruling that you have no right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution. That means that some state will ban gay marriage, the case will come in front of the court and the FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE on which that case was decided is gone. Kaput. It no longer exists. We have at least one Supreme Court judge that signaled the states to challenge those rulings. Once again, you appear to know nothing.
 
Accepting the authority of the current SCOTUS is cowardice.

People who put up with it are people who deserve it.

What they don't deserve is any affiliation with intelligent and moral people.
 
Primavera said:
Oh and the FDA has relaxed the rules on abortion pills as well. All this hoohah about R v W has been made anachronistic but I doubt the Dems will tell you that they need to keep up the fear mongering.
Click to expand...

I am less concern about the affect on Abortion than I am on what it means going forward with regards to the loss of the Right to Privacy (personal freedom).
 
Jarod said:
I am less concern about the affect on Abortion than I am on what it means going forward with regards to the loss of the Right to Privacy (personal freedom).
Click to expand...
That's coming next as many of the Alt-Righties on JPP keep mentioning; ban gay marriage, ban interracial marriage, ban, ban, ban.

See the pattern of those who advocate stripping Americans of their unalienable rights? I think this is going to get worse before it gets better. Americans are watching both political parties race to see who can turn the US into a dictatorship first. So far, the Republicans/neo-nazis/KKK/white supremacist/theocrats are winning.

6l0y2g.jpg
 
Hello Concart,

Concart said:
That is not binding. I guess I have to explain it to you. The court CANNOT rule on an issue that is not in front of it. They could not issue a decision about contraception, or gay marriage, or interracial marriage unless that question was before the court. However, rather than issuing a narrow ruling on just the Mississippi law, they made a broad ruling that you have no right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution. That means that some state will ban gay marriage, the case will come in front of the court and the FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE on which that case was decided is gone. Kaput. It no longer exists. We have at least one Supreme Court judge that signaled the states to challenge those rulings. Once again, you appear to know nothing.
Click to expand...

That was their mistake. The ruling violates the 4th Amendment to be secure in person. It should thus be overturned at a future time by a more objective court.
 
Hello Dutch,

Dutch Uncle said:
You're being nice in assuming it was a mistake and not that he's a demented, poorly educated geezer. :)
Click to expand...

It is better to focus on what is being said rather than who is saying it.

Those who spend too much time here struggle with that concept.

It doesn't take all day to weigh in on a few issues.

Those spending all day here run out of issue-based discussion and tend to become distracted with interpersonal BS.

It is the nature of an active discussion board.

It doesn't mean everyone has to be like that.

It is a matter of perspective.

It can be more easily seen by those who limit their time here.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Concart,



That was their mistake. The ruling violates the 4th Amendment to be secure in person. It should thus be overturned at a future time by a more objective court.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is an incredibly important distinction regarding this decision. Roberts supported the narrow ruling upholding the Mississippi ban after 15 weeks. While I would have taken some issue with that, it's more in line with the idea that abortion on demand in the first trimester was Constitutionally protected. But he opposed the more broad ruling, because sadly for him, it becomes the legacy of his court. It is now the court that removed Constitutional privacy protections. It's a disaster in the making. We are being remade by this court into a Christian theocracy. I suspect the court may at some point ban abortion completely in this country. And suddenly, conservatives will be all onboard for Federal Government and states rights will go out the window.
 
Primavera said:
What do you think that means in practical terms, seems a very esoteric concept to me
Click to expand...

It is not. As far back as Griswold v. Connecticut the Supreme Court has held that Americans have the right to privacy in making the most personal of decisions regarding our personal lives and those things that are essential to who we are as individuals. This right was used to prohibit the Government from interfering with choices about who we can marry, if we can use contraception, and Abortion, but if the government had tried to get involved an a huge number of other personal decisions, the Supreme Court based on that right and the precedent that it is valid, would have struck those laws down.

When deciding the recent Abortion decision, the Supreme Court did not say.... Yes the right to privacy is essential to freedom but because a second life is involved, the embryo or fetus's right to life supercedes the right to privacy and thus is not covered... Instead they wiped out the entire right to Privacy saying it does not exist. Thus we as Americans did not just lose the right to Abortion, but we lost the right to the "Freedom to make the most personal of decisions for ourselves that make us who we are as individuals." The government is now free to make all kinds of laws about our personal choices and life.

Practically, if a State or the Fed wanted to say you MUST have a covid vaccine for example, they are free to pass such a law.
If they want to say all boys must be circumcised, they are free to do that.
If they want to say we cannot have any medical procedures using stem cells, they can do that.
If they want to outlaw plastic surgery, they can.
If they want to ban driving gas powered vehicles, they can.
I could go on forever... We lost the right to many freedoms.

Sure the government may never try to take those freedoms, but I sure slept better knowing we were guaranteed these freedoms, even if the Congress decided to take them.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch,

It is better to focus on what is being said rather than who is saying it.

Those who spend too much time here struggle with that concept.

It doesn't take all day to weigh in on a few issues.

Those spending all day here run out of issue-based discussion and tend to become distracted with interpersonal BS.

It is the nature of an active discussion board.

It doesn't mean everyone has to be like that.

It is a matter of perspective.

It can be more easily seen by those who limit their time here.
Click to expand...
You're free to advocate an authoritarian state where the Constitution is more history than a living document protecting the rights of Americans. Why should you be any different than volsrock, Truth Detector, Expresslane and the rest?
 
Hello Concart,

Concart said:
Yes, and this is an incredibly important distinction regarding this decision. Roberts supported the narrow ruling upholding the Mississippi ban after 15 weeks. While I would have taken some issue with that, it's more in line with the idea that abortion on demand in the first trimester was Constitutionally protected. But he opposed the more broad ruling, because sadly for him, it becomes the legacy of his court. It is now the court that removed Constitutional privacy protections. It's a disaster in the making. We are being remade by this court into a Christian theocracy. I suspect the court may at some point ban abortion completely in this country. And suddenly, conservatives will be all onboard for Federal Government and states rights will go out the window.
Click to expand...

And that is why this thread has generated so many comments. It is widely understood that rights were taken away. Those who would normally object to that are willing to look the other way to get what they want now, but they don't realize it may come back to bite them in the rear later. Freedom has been diminished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top