00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

biggergayballs just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Roe vs. Wade

15,705 Views | 352 Replies

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-26 18:24:53


At 6/26/22 05:27 PM, EnterTheTwilitRealm wrote: Idk if this was already brought up, but Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, two of the conservative justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, claimed that they believed the case was settled law prior to its overturning, so they could technically be impeached for lying under oath, though considering how the Senate's been recently, that's unfortunately not likely to happen.
(article from The Independent)


There is zero merit in impeaching Kavanaugh and Gorsuch for lying under oath. All of the Trump-picked Justices have cited stare decisis as the reason that Roe v. Wade continued to exist, but not specifically as a reason for how they would rule on abortion cases. Impeached justices would simply argue that Roe v. Wade should be an exception to stare decisis, or that they changed their mind in how they feel about certain aspects of settled case law. I am pro-choice, but what AOC is proposing is a bad idea.


BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-26 20:08:39


CBS News poll: Americans react to overturning of Roe v. Wade


The American public is rendering its initial judgment on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and most disapprove of the ruling, including two-thirds of women who disapprove.

By more than a 20-point margin, Americans call it a step backward rather than forward for America. And women, by more than three to one, think the ruling will make women's lives worse rather than better.

Those who approve — and in particular, the three-fourths of conservatives who do — say they feel both hopeful and happy.

As they look ahead, those disapproving of Friday's ruling are especially likely to think the high court might someday limit or end birth control and also same-sex marriage.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-26 23:10:47 (edited 2022-06-26 23:15:07)


At 6/25/22 10:56 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 6/25/22 10:44 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I'll say it again: Democrats knew from day one that Republicans wanted to overturn the decision. They had 50 years to codify it into law. That 50 years included three instance where Democrats controlled all three chambers, including the 2009 supermajority in the Senate. Why didn't they do it at any of these times if it was so important to them?

You may remember that Obama said he'd codify Roe if he was elected in 2008. Then he got into office and said it was "not a priority." So, I can only conclude two things: they wanted to use perceived and/or real threats to Roe as a carrot for fundraising, and as a bogeyman to get people to vote for them because bad things would happen if you didn't. Then they'd do nothing anyway. (For that matter, so did the Republicans, who always fundraised/ran on "vote for us to outlaw abortion" and then never bothered. It was a convenient wedge issue for everyone.)

Of course, Democrats themselves aren't the only ones to blame. RBG's sheer narcissism and hubris kept her from retiring despite Obama's gentle suggestion (he should have been more aggressive) that a cancer survivor in her late 70s might not make it past a pivotal election, and he had a supermajority at that point and would have been able to replace her. Hell, even Justice Kennedy knew when to call it quits. I can picture it: RBG wanted to swear in Hillary as President because glass ceilings and all that shit.

Where we can once again place the blame on Democrats is clearing the field in 2016 to run the worst candidate in the history of Planet Earth who brought nothing to the table other than condescending smugness and an overwhelming sense of entitlement because it was "her turn." There were plenty of other good Democratic candidates who would have done well. One Joe Biden comes to mind. Unlike Hillary, he would have left the Hamptons fundraisers to go hobnob with the proles she couldn't stand to be in the same five-mile radius as.

I suppose, in a way, Democrats also had a long plan for the Court like Republicans did. But a "plan" that relies on the whims and lifespans of unelected judges with life tenures is not a plan.
So, blame Democrats for not preventing it when they couldn't do anything about it, but excuse Republicans for actually doing it.

Your argument still doesn't make any sense, no matter how you try to spin it, Rydia. It's like you have some deep seated hatred of Democrats that blinds you to the point you are being unreasonable. And besides, The conservative controlled supreme court would have smacked down anything Democrats passed in congress over it.


Edy, it’s really gross to see how you constantly shit all over Rydia, an actual American woman who would be more affected by this than you would be, just because she’s offering an opinion that there’s plenty of blame to go around on all sides of the political spectrum for Roe ending.


Like, I get that you love being a left-leaning shill that shares the same Yahoo articles repeatedly, but you need to cool it on the tone towards people that aren’t as militantly on the “I HATE ALL REPUBLICANS AND RIGHT WING THINGS GRRRR” train as you are.


Sig by BlueHippo - AMA

Formerly PuddinN64 - BBS, Icon, and Portal Mod

"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out Guinea Something Good!

BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-26 23:52:12


At 6/26/22 11:10 PM, ZJ wrote:
At 6/25/22 10:56 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 6/25/22 10:44 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I'll say it again: Democrats knew from day one that Republicans wanted to overturn the decision. They had 50 years to codify it into law. That 50 years included three instance where Democrats controlled all three chambers, including the 2009 supermajority in the Senate. Why didn't they do it at any of these times if it was so important to them?

You may remember that Obama said he'd codify Roe if he was elected in 2008. Then he got into office and said it was "not a priority." So, I can only conclude two things: they wanted to use perceived and/or real threats to Roe as a carrot for fundraising, and as a bogeyman to get people to vote for them because bad things would happen if you didn't. Then they'd do nothing anyway. (For that matter, so did the Republicans, who always fundraised/ran on "vote for us to outlaw abortion" and then never bothered. It was a convenient wedge issue for everyone.)

Of course, Democrats themselves aren't the only ones to blame. RBG's sheer narcissism and hubris kept her from retiring despite Obama's gentle suggestion (he should have been more aggressive) that a cancer survivor in her late 70s might not make it past a pivotal election, and he had a supermajority at that point and would have been able to replace her. Hell, even Justice Kennedy knew when to call it quits. I can picture it: RBG wanted to swear in Hillary as President because glass ceilings and all that shit.

Where we can once again place the blame on Democrats is clearing the field in 2016 to run the worst candidate in the history of Planet Earth who brought nothing to the table other than condescending smugness and an overwhelming sense of entitlement because it was "her turn." There were plenty of other good Democratic candidates who would have done well. One Joe Biden comes to mind. Unlike Hillary, he would have left the Hamptons fundraisers to go hobnob with the proles she couldn't stand to be in the same five-mile radius as.

I suppose, in a way, Democrats also had a long plan for the Court like Republicans did. But a "plan" that relies on the whims and lifespans of unelected judges with life tenures is not a plan.
So, blame Democrats for not preventing it when they couldn't do anything about it, but excuse Republicans for actually doing it.

Your argument still doesn't make any sense, no matter how you try to spin it, Rydia. It's like you have some deep seated hatred of Democrats that blinds you to the point you are being unreasonable. And besides, The conservative controlled supreme court would have smacked down anything Democrats passed in congress over it.
Edy, it’s really gross to see how you constantly shit all over Rydia, an actual American woman who would be more affected by this than you would be, just because she’s offering an opinion that there’s plenty of blame to go around on all sides of the political spectrum for Roe ending.

Like, I get that you love being a left-leaning shill that shares the same Yahoo articles repeatedly, but you need to cool it on the tone towards people that aren’t as militantly on the “I HATE ALL REPUBLICANS AND RIGHT WING THINGS GRRRR” train as you are.


?


Maybe you can explain her point of view, then, if you think I am being to tough on her. How did Democrats actually lead to this, and why should they share most of the blame for it?

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-27 00:14:48


At 6/26/22 11:10 PM, ZJ wrote:
At 6/25/22 10:56 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 6/25/22 10:44 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I'll say it again: Democrats knew from day one that Republicans wanted to overturn the decision. They had 50 years to codify it into law. That 50 years included three instance where Democrats controlled all three chambers, including the 2009 supermajority in the Senate. Why didn't they do it at any of these times if it was so important to them?

You may remember that Obama said he'd codify Roe if he was elected in 2008. Then he got into office and said it was "not a priority." So, I can only conclude two things: they wanted to use perceived and/or real threats to Roe as a carrot for fundraising, and as a bogeyman to get people to vote for them because bad things would happen if you didn't. Then they'd do nothing anyway. (For that matter, so did the Republicans, who always fundraised/ran on "vote for us to outlaw abortion" and then never bothered. It was a convenient wedge issue for everyone.)

Of course, Democrats themselves aren't the only ones to blame. RBG's sheer narcissism and hubris kept her from retiring despite Obama's gentle suggestion (he should have been more aggressive) that a cancer survivor in her late 70s might not make it past a pivotal election, and he had a supermajority at that point and would have been able to replace her. Hell, even Justice Kennedy knew when to call it quits. I can picture it: RBG wanted to swear in Hillary as President because glass ceilings and all that shit.

Where we can once again place the blame on Democrats is clearing the field in 2016 to run the worst candidate in the history of Planet Earth who brought nothing to the table other than condescending smugness and an overwhelming sense of entitlement because it was "her turn." There were plenty of other good Democratic candidates who would have done well. One Joe Biden comes to mind. Unlike Hillary, he would have left the Hamptons fundraisers to go hobnob with the proles she couldn't stand to be in the same five-mile radius as.

I suppose, in a way, Democrats also had a long plan for the Court like Republicans did. But a "plan" that relies on the whims and lifespans of unelected judges with life tenures is not a plan.
So, blame Democrats for not preventing it when they couldn't do anything about it, but excuse Republicans for actually doing it.

Your argument still doesn't make any sense, no matter how you try to spin it, Rydia. It's like you have some deep seated hatred of Democrats that blinds you to the point you are being unreasonable. And besides, The conservative controlled supreme court would have smacked down anything Democrats passed in congress over it.
Edy, it’s really gross to see how you constantly shit all over Rydia, an actual American woman who would be more affected by this than you would be, just because she’s offering an opinion that there’s plenty of blame to go around on all sides of the political spectrum for Roe ending.

Like, I get that you love being a left-leaning shill that shares the same Yahoo articles repeatedly, but you need to cool it on the tone towards people that aren’t as militantly on the “I HATE ALL REPUBLICANS AND RIGHT WING THINGS GRRRR” train as you are.


And you are right, the decision doesn't personally afect me in any way. But there are people who I personally know who could be affected by this down the road, along with the long range consequences that this decision could have on the country. Isn't that you own reason for being alarmed over it's repeal?


Also, I am a registered Republican, with a lot of family who are Republicans. I also tend to vote for Republicans in my home state of California, mostly for ones who act reasonably and sane. If I seem to come off as hating them it's because I don't like the direction they are heading in. I want them to be a viable party, again, who can work to balance out Democrats when they go to far on things....

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-27 03:00:05


At 6/27/22 02:40 AM, awdgamer123 wrote:
At 6/26/22 12:29 PM, EdyKel wrote: Sane, thoughtful, people, would not give credence to anything that Hitler said, ever, unless they, to some degree, secretly admired what he did to protect his race.
You do realize that you can still condemn Hitler as a person while thinking some of his quotes are admittedly pretty good, don't you?

For the sake of finding one of many, many quotes available for your speech, I think it’s ok to cast the net wider than Hitler.



BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-27 03:13:06


At 6/27/22 02:40 AM, awdgamer123 wrote:
You do realize that you can still condemn Hitler as a person while thinking some of his quotes are admittedly pretty good, don't you?


the "hitler was a vegetarian" style argument falls a little flat when the quotes someone pulled had to do with instilling white supremacy into people while they were young after proclaiming the country was moving in the right direction for "white life"


Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-27 03:39:33


At 6/27/22 02:40 AM, awdgamer123 wrote:
At 6/26/22 12:29 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 6/26/22 11:45 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:
At 6/26/22 10:50 AM, EdyKel wrote: MAGA Lawmaker Thanks Trump For 'Historic' Supreme Court Ruling For 'White Life'
I’ll be charitable and give the benefit of the doubt that she intended “right to life” instead of “white life”, both of which sit painfully in that speech she was delivering.
Yeah, but as the article points out, she was also known for quoting Hitler...

And also:

Sane, thoughtful, people, would not give credence to anything that Hitler said, ever, unless they, to some degree, secretly admired what he did to protect his race. And they certainly wouldn't focouse on "defending their culture and faith" after one of the worse school shootings in US history. That just pure hypocrisy to their "right to life" position.

You do realize that you can still condemn Hitler as a person while thinking some of his quotes are admittedly pretty good, don't you?

If you want to shine like sun, first you want to burn like it.
Words build bridges into unexplored regions
Anyone can deal with victory. Only the mighty can bear defeat

Thought I guess the last quote is pretty ironic coming from Hitler.


The funny thing about many famous quotes is that they often start out as common phrases, or were originally said by someone that no one remembers and altered over time. They are just then attributed to a famous person, or to the person who most popularized it. And some times they are fake quotes, never actually said by the person it was attributed to.


In the case of your Hitler quote, I can't find him actually saying word for word "If you want to shine like sun, first you want to burn like it." It's most likely a misattribution, where someone simplified something he wrote in his book. This is the closest he comes to saying it his Book, the Mein Kampf.


As long as the historical memory of Frederick the Great, for instance, still lives, Frederick Ebert can arouse only a problematic admiration. The relation of the hero of Sans Souci to the former republican of Bremen may be compared to that of the sun to the moon; for the moon can shine only after the direct rays of the sun have left the earth. Thus we can readily understand why it is that all the new moons in human history have hated the fixed stars. In the field of politics, if Fate should happen temporarily to place the ruling power in the hands of those nonentities they are not only eager to defile and revile the past but at the same time they will use all means to evade criticism of their own acts. The Law for the Protection of the Republic, which the new German State enacted, may be taken as one example of this truth.


And I'm pretty sure that the phrase "whoever has the youth has the future" is quite common, and has been said in one form or another for centuries, and probably in many different parts of the world. Singling out Hitler for it, a well known white nationalist.... Well that speaks volumes in the worst way.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-27 17:25:42


I'm not a woman and I have absolutely zero interest in ever having children ever so I really don't feel inclined to share any specific opinions on that.


What I will say, however, IS THAT WE'RE OVERPOPULATED AS FUCK.


The fear of blood tends to create fear for the flesh.

BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-27 22:40:46


At 6/27/22 05:25 PM, LittleLuckyLink wrote: I'm not a woman and I have absolutely zero interest in ever having children ever so I really don't feel inclined to share any specific opinions on that.

What I will say, however, IS THAT WE'RE OVERPOPULATED AS FUCK.


Maybe I'm biased here since I was adopted myself, but I'd like the laws to be loosened a bit to make it easier to adopt American children. Most of the overseas adoptions are due to stringent US laws.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-28 09:11:48 (edited 2022-06-28 09:18:53)


If I am reading this correctly, there may be yet another SCOTUS decision coming down the pike which will have even bigger lasting consequences for the executive branch.


(It’s not yahoo dont moan to me)


This could defang or even dissolve many alphabet soup executive agencies. These bureaucrats are unelected, unaccountable, but have as much power as any other politician.


The opinion will be tomorrow. More to come.


At 6/27/22 10:40 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Maybe I'm biased here since I was adopted myself, but I'd like the laws to be loosened a bit to make it easier to adopt American children. Most of the overseas adoptions are due to stringent US laws.


word on the street is that John Roberts may have had his own grey-market adoption used as leverage against him.


His kid is an adult now, so they can’t take him away anymore, but there was a lot of scuttlebutt years ago that because his adoption wasn’t totally by the book, (think of Angelina Jolie’s adoption of kids overseas) that this was used against him to have ACA ruled constitutional in 2009.


I agree with you Rydia Anybody that adopts a child from another country is following the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty to a T: “I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”


hello

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-28 11:45:24 (edited 2022-06-28 11:46:25)


At 6/28/22 09:11 AM, BUM-DRILLER wrote: If I am reading this correctly, there may be yet another SCOTUS decision coming down the pike which will have even bigger lasting consequences for the executive branch.

(It’s not yahoo dont moan to me)

This could defang or even dissolve many alphabet soup executive agencies. These bureaucrats are unelected, unaccountable, but have as much power as any other politician.


I think this just tells us where your others source of information comes from, and how dumb you are if you are happy about pollution getting worse, and why Christian zealots should not be crowned kings/queens in the highest court of the land that you can not remove.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-06-30 15:00:21 (edited 2022-06-30 15:03:05)


Defining when human life begins is not a question science can answer – it's a question of politics and ethical values


California advances Texas-style lawsuits over illegal guns


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California legislators on Monday approved Texas-style lawsuits over illegal guns, mimicking the Lone Star State's law aimed at deterring abortions and obliquely linking the two most controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions from last week.


Israel loosens abortion regulations in response to Roe


Vatican Says 'Pro Life' Activists Must Fight For Gun Control

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-07-02 23:12:08 (edited 2022-07-02 23:12:26)


I agree

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-07-03 17:04:29


At 6/27/22 05:25 PM, LittleLuckyLink wrote: I'm not a woman and I have absolutely zero interest in ever having children ever so I really don't feel inclined to share any specific opinions on that.

What I will say, however, IS THAT WE'RE OVERPOPULATED AS FUCK.


I'm the same. Thats why this shit upsets me so much. And there is no telling if contraceptives will survive the lifetimes of Mitch Mconnel and Clarence Thomas.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-07-04 09:30:12


People die every single day. So no matter the circumstances, I don't see why I should care if another one does. Be it a baby or a fetus.


Notorious internet cunt

My old username was StaticSkull

She/Her

BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-07-11 10:12:35



F*ck Putin the murderer, RIP Alexei Navalny


F*ck SCOTUS

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-07-19 19:27:23


Right wing strategy and talking points...


An anti-abortion group sent a memo to GOP members of Congress urging them not to leave abortion to the states and outlined talking points to 'keep pro-lifers on offense'


The Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America nonprofit sent talking points to GOP lawmakers.

The messaging included focusing on Democrats' "extremism" and the "humanity of the unborn child."

The memo also said the issue should not simply be "left to the states."


Already hearing this type of stuff from my conservative sources, who are always a good indication of what the average conservative thinks....

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-07-20 09:31:02 (edited 2022-07-20 09:37:06)


To those that are making the Argument that Abortion is good to curb overpopulation, let's discuss the Statistics of Population:


https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/world-demographics/#tfr


IMHO, Abortion should be an Inalienable Right.


Population Control is about Sustainability.


Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-07-27 21:29:16 (edited 2022-07-27 21:33:51)


Why does it sound like the opposite of giving people a voice...


Mike Pompeo: Vote yes on Kansas Constitution abortion amendment to give people a voice


I think this gives more credence to the theory that it was leaked by the conservative side of the court.


Chief Justice John Roberts privately tried to sway other justices not to overturn Roe v. Wade, only to be thwarted by the unprecedented draft leak: report

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-02 23:05:43 (edited 2022-08-02 23:06:23)


At 7/27/22 09:29 PM, EdyKel wrote: Why does it sound like the opposite of giving people a voice...

Mike Pompeo: Vote yes on Kansas Constitution abortion amendment to give people a voice

I think this gives more credence to the theory that it was leaked by the conservative side of the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts privately tried to sway other justices not to overturn Roe v. Wade, only to be thwarted by the unprecedented draft leak: report


And the voice of Kansas apparently rejected it with a resounding "NO".


‘No’ prevails: Kansas votes to protect abortion rights in state constitution

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-05 16:36:18


At 8/2/22 11:05 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 7/27/22 09:29 PM, EdyKel wrote: Why does it sound like the opposite of giving people a voice...

Mike Pompeo: Vote yes on Kansas Constitution abortion amendment to give people a voice

I think this gives more credence to the theory that it was leaked by the conservative side of the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts privately tried to sway other justices not to overturn Roe v. Wade, only to be thwarted by the unprecedented draft leak: report
And the voice of Kansas apparently rejected it with a resounding "NO".

‘No’ prevails: Kansas votes to protect abortion rights in state constitution


One can only hope that this means Republican wipeout in the midterms...



F*ck Putin the murderer, RIP Alexei Navalny


F*ck SCOTUS

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-05 17:01:38


At 8/5/22 04:36 PM, RoboHex wrote:
At 8/2/22 11:05 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 7/27/22 09:29 PM, EdyKel wrote: Why does it sound like the opposite of giving people a voice...

Mike Pompeo: Vote yes on Kansas Constitution abortion amendment to give people a voice

I think this gives more credence to the theory that it was leaked by the conservative side of the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts privately tried to sway other justices not to overturn Roe v. Wade, only to be thwarted by the unprecedented draft leak: report
And the voice of Kansas apparently rejected it with a resounding "NO".

‘No’ prevails: Kansas votes to protect abortion rights in state constitution
One can only hope that this means Republican wipeout in the midterms...


Well...


Voices: Mitch McConnell is suddenly trying to lower expectations for the midterms. Why?


On Wednesday evening, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did something peculiar: He tamped down expectations for the upcoming midterm election.

“We have a 50-50 Senate now,” he said during an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News. “We have a 50-50 nation. And I think when the Senate race smoke clears, we’re likely to have a very, very close Senate still, with either us up slightly or the Democrats up slightly.”

Even a few months ago, nobody would have expected McConnell to curb enthusiasm about a Republican takeover. Joe Biden’s approval numbers are still dismal, and inflation is at a 40-year high. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, still have not passed their massive social spending bill, and are defending seats in four swing states, including Nevada, Georgia, Arizona and New Hampshire.

All of those things are still true – but the circumstances are changing.


We shall see.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-05 18:22:04


At 8/5/22 04:36 PM, RoboHex wrote:
At 8/2/22 11:05 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 7/27/22 09:29 PM, EdyKel wrote: Why does it sound like the opposite of giving people a voice...

Mike Pompeo: Vote yes on Kansas Constitution abortion amendment to give people a voice

I think this gives more credence to the theory that it was leaked by the conservative side of the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts privately tried to sway other justices not to overturn Roe v. Wade, only to be thwarted by the unprecedented draft leak: report
And the voice of Kansas apparently rejected it with a resounding "NO".

‘No’ prevails: Kansas votes to protect abortion rights in state constitution
One can only hope that this means Republican wipeout in the midterms...


This would be nice.


Hence why it won't happen.


Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.

It's better to die together than to live alone.

Sig by Decky

BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-05 22:42:25


I have had some thoughts about this recently, and...


1. I do not believe the 14th Amendment, by itself, technically provides a constitutional right to abortion.


The key part is this: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Many say that denying abortion abridges the privileges of women. But abortions deprive unborn children of life.


I believe this is a paradox... The solution to this is to establish an official definition of when an unborn baby's life begins. When such a definition exists, women will constitutionally have abortion rights prior to that defined time.


The problem with that is people are too divided to make such a definition.


2. I feel that Democrats gain more from the abortion bans.


Black women have far more abortions than whites. Banning abortion means a greater African American population, many of these people poor and living in solidly Democratic neighborhoods. I'm talking about lifetime leftists who never voted for a Republican in their lives.


So Republicans are encouraging the growth of populations that want nothing to do with Republicans.


That feels ironic.


I believe in the ultimate triumph of evil over good in this world.


It doesn't help that we keep funding our enemies.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-06 00:29:04 (edited 2022-08-06 00:30:07)


At 8/5/22 10:42 PM, Th-e wrote: I have had some thoughts about this recently, and...

1. I do not believe the 14th Amendment, by itself, technically provides a constitutional right to abortion.

The key part is this: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Many say that denying abortion abridges the privileges of women. But abortions deprive unborn children of life.

I believe this is a paradox... The solution to this is to establish an official definition of when an unborn baby's life begins. When such a definition exists, women will constitutionally have abortion rights prior to that defined time.

The problem with that is people are too divided to make such a definition.


The funny thing is there are no individual gun rights in the constitution, but that has changed due to more liberal interpretations of the constitutions to expand them over the years. Similarly, the same thing for abortions until recently


The founders were aware of abortions, but it was as contentious as slavery, and left up to the states to decide - along with who were allowed to own guns. But, unfortunately, today's US Supreme court is controlled by a Christian theocracy, where they see abortions as not being a federally protected right while holding the opposite view over guns rights. It's pretty fucked up hypocrisy.


2. I feel that Democrats gain more from the abortion bans.

Black women have far more abortions than whites. Banning abortion means a greater African American population, many of these people poor and living in solidly Democratic neighborhoods. I'm talking about lifetime leftists who never voted for a Republican in their lives.

So Republicans are encouraging the growth of populations that want nothing to do with Republicans.

That feels ironic.


Yeah, that's pretty much a conservative talking point. We are talking about only a few percentage point difference between blacks and whites (5%) on abortions, here, not a chasm. It's meant to imply that Democrats are immoral and racists, even though there is more diversity in the Democrat party leadership by leaps and bounds over the Republican party - with the later ignoring the greater economic disparities of blacks to virtual signal over abortions while appealing to the insecurities of white, straight, male, Christians.

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-06 03:23:36


At 8/5/22 10:42 PM, Th-e wrote: The key part is this: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Many say that denying abortion abridges the privileges of women. But abortions deprive unborn children of life.

If a person is defined to be 'a human being that has been born', then that stays consistent with the amendment in all respects. Even if one goes by religious arguments, I believe life is indicated to start at birth, but I'm no evangelical christian.


Slint approves of me! | "This is Newgrounds.com, not Disney.com" - WadeFulp

"Sit look rub panda" - Alan Davies

BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-06 06:05:36


At 8/6/22 03:23 AM, Gimmick wrote:
At 8/5/22 10:42 PM, Th-e wrote: The key part is this: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Many say that denying abortion abridges the privileges of women. But abortions deprive unborn children of life.
If a person is defined to be 'a human being that has been born', then that stays consistent with the amendment in all respects. Even if one goes by religious arguments, I believe life is indicated to start at birth, but I'm no evangelical christian.


The Bible is pretty straightforward about life beginning at birth.


And if we accept religious arguments as invalid (as well we should), it turns out that doesn't change much. For example, the German civil code begins thusly (and this is literally article 1 in its entirety): "The ability of a natural person to have rights and duties begins at the completion of birth".


Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.

It's better to die together than to live alone.

Sig by Decky

BBS Signature

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-08 19:32:06 (edited 2022-08-08 19:32:36)


Republicans are facing a lot of backlash on this as voters prefer pro-choice over no-choice candidates.


Republicans Begin Adjusting to a Fierce Abortion Backlash


Republican candidates, facing a stark reality check from Kansas voters, are softening their once-uncompromising stands against abortion as they move toward the general election, recognizing that strict bans are unpopular and that the issue may be a major driver in the fall campaigns.

In swing states and even conservative corners of the country, several Republicans have shifted their talk on abortion bans, newly emphasizing support for exceptions. Some have noticeably stopped discussing details at all. Pitched battles in Republican-dominated state legislatures have broken out now that the Supreme Court has made what has long been a theoretical argument a reality.


‘Handmaid’s Tale’ was ‘not supposed to be a road map’: GOP lawmaker warns party on abortion


Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina said Sunday that abortion could hinder her party's chances in the midterm elections if it continues pushing harsh policies, such as a ban without exceptions for rape.

“I do think that it will be an issue in November if we’re not moderating ourselves — that we’re including exceptions for women who have been raped, for girls who are victims of incest and certainly in every instance where the life of the mother is at stake,” Mace said in an interview on NBC News' "Meet the Press."

“‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ was not supposed to be a road map, right?" she added, referring to Margaret Atwood's 1985 dystopian novel in which women are forced to give birth. "This is a place where we can be in the center, we can protect life, and we can protect where people are on both sides of the aisle."


Even a Fox News poll indicate that Voters want pro-choice candidates more than no choice candidates.


Poll: Americans trust GOP to tackle inflation, economy, but prefer pro-choice over pro-life candidates

Response to Roe vs. Wade 2022-08-15 03:56:17


At 5/3/22 04:13 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
At 5/3/22 01:38 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: If Roe goes down Obergefell is probably not far behind. And we've only had a majority conservative SC for so little time. Things are looking pretty good lately!
Abortion aside, why do you want Obergefell to fall? What is the benefit in that, other than to piss off the LGBTQIA+ community? Unless you're explicitly trying to make it near impossible to be queer/trans and living in the US. Why rip apart families and couples? Or would you just like to jump to executing LGBTQIA+ individuals? I mean, seems like y'all already want to do that to the trans community....


Bro what?


doodoo man