Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close

No. I will not grant anyone the "choice" to take away my rights. Or to tell someone else to do so.

 

To the men out there. How would you feel if the Supreme Court ruled that states could decide individually whether you could get a vasectomy or not, how many children you could have, or if you could be arrested and jailed for doing those things in a neighboring state?

 

There is no fucking argument here. And this is the same for women and their rights to their own body. Any differing opinion is just flat out wrong and evil. And you all want us to just accept it. Fuck off hard.

 

Rock bottom is getting close

 

If you told your child to kill someone it would be the same as you killing them.

Accidents happen, but nothing about the Supreme Court ruling is an accident. It's all right there in black and white as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling.

 

Unfortunately it might not be. There is a long way to fall, but the misery starts getting bad now.

 

This is the point i am trying to make. Maybe not very well.
Currently this is the system we have and they could do exactly what you speak of. Shouldn't the system be changed? Instead of 7 people controlling everyones choices, let 50 different states figure it out on their own so there is no one blanket right or wrong dictated to all by 7 people? Or do you want it only when they agree with you and don't want it when they don't agree with you?

Not sure why this has to get personal with telling people to fuck off for simply discussing the options our current government has for legislating what is right and wrong for everyone?
No one has said anything is morally right or wrong. We, or I at least, am simply trying to discuss the legal options we have set up within our current government. No one is saying people shouldn't have rights.
It is possible to have a discussion about things one may not agree with without telling people to fuck off… just sayin..

 

Not true and the courts would not back that up.

if i told you to go kill someone and you did it. And then tried to blame me for it, the courts would throw out anything to do with that.

Thats what choice is all about. It doesn't matter what you are told. It matters what you do.
If nabisco told me to eat nothing but their junk food, could i sue them for my inevitable medical bills because they told me to eat their food?
Courts would throw my case out.
not understanding your logic on this at all. Sorry.

 

No. The constitution places limits on the government's ability to restrict individuals. Any right protected in the constitution should be protected nation wide. No government body should be able to remove or restrict these individual rights without a constitutional amendment.

Meaning once the court rules to protect or grant an individual right, that ruling should be respected unless it is overturned by a constitutional amendment.

 

The point im trying to make seems to keep being missed.
Allowing these 7 people to grant is also allowing them to deny, if they see fit. If we allow them to make a choice one way then we allow them to make a choice another way. Its how it is. Its how its set up.
We have a system that anoints them the power to determine what is right and wrong. What constitutional amendment is there for abortion? Or are you saying we need one?

and if so, all we can do is follow the current laws/design until an amendment is approved, correct?

 

It wouldn't surprise me if there were rules on how many kids people could have someday. That is something that has been done in other countries before.

 

The right wants more kids. Ever expanding population of ignorant people to expand consumerism for the benefit of the monopolies.

 

There are many protections which should be protecting women's rights to abortion.

-4th Amendment protects against Search and Seizure
-5th Amendment protects from incriminating oneself
-8th Amendment Protections against Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
-14th Amendment Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts

Amendment XIV
Section 1

The unborn are not covered by the constitution, but born or naturalized women ARE. And as such their rights are constitutionally protected over that of any unborn.

And HIPAA also prevents doctors from sharing this information, so the government has no legal way to know or enforce any restriction.

These radical judges have destroyed the respectability and legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and as such, it needs to be remade to more appropriately reflect the will of the people.

 

Almost all of those are open to interpretation and are not clear on abortion at all. Illegal search and seizure? Can you explain how that clearly relates to abortion, especially if the unborn is not a citizen?
Again. I am not saying I am against abortions.
I am saying lets not call people killers and evil for simply trying to understand and comply with the current laws in place.
To be for limited government and wanting to explore other potential options on how regulations should or should not happen, has nothing to do with fascism, racism or anything the original post that sparked this conversation inferred.
My point of contention in all of this is labelling projected opinions based on twisted words and misunderstood contexts.
Good healthy conversation so far IMO.

 

Removing rights to individuals that have already been decided to be protected is absolutely wrong. Especially when each of these justices already said before being given their position that prior rulings should be respected.

Being for limited government doesn't including removing rights from citizens during a state/federal pissing match. That's dishonest and corrupt to the point of autocratic, dictatorial, or authoritarian levels.

 

I would think this would be unconstitutional?

 

LOL like that would stop something from changing.

 

Especially since these right wing activist justices are only beholden to the Federalist Society.

 

You didnt address the questions i posed about being up for interpretation and the lack of clarity search and seizure has to do with abortion? This lack of clarity is likely the stronghold some use to push their opinions/beliefs. Until it is clearly defined in an amendment, i am not sure how we can fault people for exploring other options of regulation based on thier beliefs?

maybe this is where an amendment is required like i think you said earlier? So maybe the focus should be on getting the constitution clearly updated vs going after, condemning and ridiculing those who have different moral beliefs?

if one doesnt like that someone else feels abortion is wrong and should be illegal, wouldnt energy spent on amending the constitution be much more effective than just labelling and ridiculing those with different beliefs than our own?
Get the constitution updated and then who cares what beliefs others have. they wont be able to instill their beliefs legally.