You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > US politics
August 18 2022 8.24am

US politics

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 255 of 289 < 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 >

 

BlueJay Flag UK 24 Jun 22 8.36pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


The slippery slope can be real and not a fallacy, however some of the claims are absurd and just won't happen.

My cut off point for abortion is the start of a heartbeat, which would be around six weeks.


Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Jun 2022 8.10pm)

It's not a slippery slope argument where the individual specifically says they wish to revisit those areas, it's comment on their stated intention.

Personally, I'd don't think I'd even be against six weeks or thereabouts, as that would exclude the eventuality I mentioned (as long as it is included provisions for where a womens heath is 'genuinely' at risk). My concern is that as of now there are no such exceptions in some states, and I'm not sure that there will be any motivation to add them due to how polarised this issue has been allowed to become.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
BlueJay Flag UK 24 Jun 22 8.44pm

Originally posted by W12

When itís conceived.

So again, your view is that a raped woman is a child murderer if she takes a morning after pill. It's not about the frequently, it's comment on the extent to which you feel the government should have complete control over an individual in such a bad spot. Cheering on the erosion of others freedoms to that extent, and you may as well be cheering on the same for your own too, because the topic of the day is irrelevant in comparison to the level of control over the individual sought by government.

Women can get pregnant on birth control too by the way, so by your logic these women should also be forced to give birth in all instances. Seems like you desire rather extreme control over womens lives. Why is a sensible stance of say a few weeks more offensive to you than forcing women at this eary stage to give birth in situations where its clearly better that they have a say?

Edited by BlueJay (24 Jun 2022 8.59pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 24 Jun 22 9.02pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

It's not a slippery slope argument where the individual specifically says they wish to revisit those areas, it's comment on their stated intention.

Personally, I'd don't think I'd even be against six weeks or thereabouts, as that would exclude the eventuality I mentioned (as long as it is included provisions for where a womens heath is 'genuinely' at risk). My concern is that as of now there are no such exceptions in some states, and I'm not sure that there will be any motivation to add them due to how polarised this issue has been allowed to become.

I think the idea that contraception is under serious threat from the Supreme Court just isn't realistic (though I understand the negative arguments against easy sex...even if I often joke around the area).....I could see gay 'marriage' being given back to states.....as for banning gay sex? They would have to shut down the media and Hollywood....and while we could certainly make arguments for that gay sex isn't one of them.

Not going to happen.

On abortion, I agree with the argument that this should be a state issue as America is in reality a collection of separate legal systems and the flaws found in Roe v Wade are real.

I agree that this isn't straight forward and that there are complex issues and questions over it. However, I can only speak for myself now....as I was pro choice before I actually had to face this question in my personal life.

I'm not that sure I'm comfortable forcing my convictions onto others, however we live in an age where....whether from left or right, this is what happens, either directly or indirectly.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Jun 2022 9.07pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
BlueJay Flag UK 24 Jun 22 9.29pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I think the idea that contraception is under serious threat from the Supreme Court just isn't realistic (though I understand the negative arguments against easy sex...even if I often joke around the area).....I could see gay 'marriage' being given back to states.....as for banning gay sex? They would have to shut down the media and Hollywood....and while we could certainly make arguments for that gay sex isn't one of them.

Not going to happen.

Considering what has just happened, I'm not sure that we could say that something that was only overturned in 2003 [Link] is never going to happen' . It would certainly be of interest to some States, which is precisely why Roe vs Wade has been overturned.

As for same sex marriage, while I'd put that in a different category as it's not private conduct (and I think a society should decide on what is santioned as a marriage) it even opens the door for revisiting Loving v. Virginia [Link] if in any State views that as something they do not want. I'll admit it sounds far fetched but when precedent set in that very same decade is overturned as has now here, I'm not sure that we can rule out State challenges at some point.

It was the 60's also where the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control. This is an area Thomas specifically said he wanted to reconsider. People are forgetting that the puritanical religious aspect to certain outlooks has never gone away, it's just been drowned out for a time by the equally wacky far left [Link] In several States there have been efforts and court challenges to in various ways restrict Emergency contraception, which lets remember results in lower aboriton rates. Lots of these beliefs go hand in hand in a sense.

I'm not saying any of the above will happen, just that this ruling, and its accompanying wording (Justice Thomas calling these other rulings an 'error' that should be corrected and also Roe vs Wade sets a new precedent) intentionally open them up as movements that previously would not have gained traction, and now may well be fast-tracked. It pays to remember that it's not about what the nation thinks, rather any individual State and how the Surpeme Court acts on that.

Quote

On abortion, I agree with the argument that this should be a state issue as America is in reality a collection of separate legal systems and the flaws found in Roe v Wade are real.

I agree that this isn't straight forward and that there are complex issues and questions over it. However, I can only speak for myself now....as I was pro choice before I actually had to face this question in my personal life.

I'm not that sure I'm comfortable forcing my convictions onto others, however we live in an age where....whether from left or right, this is what happens, either directly or indirectly.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Jun 2022 9.07pm)

In a reasoned society variance in these areas wouldn't be terrible thing, but I see problems at both extremes. With too easy access in some States and a flippant attitude to life, and at the other end the 'at conception' crowd and the health and real world implications on freedom and privacy that can emerge with that. I fear this will now push even further into another guns rights 'all or nothing' type issue, where any reasonable step is increasingly seen as giving ground to an enemy, rather than considering the pros and cons of its actual impact. For all it's faults, Americans are big on their freedoms and government keeping out of their lives. I'm not sure that some States overnight having absolute control over the individual on this issue in all circumstances is a good thing.

Edited by BlueJay (25 Jun 2022 1.23am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 24 Jun 22 10.20pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by W12

Killing babies is wrong. There is no subjective argument.

Only an idiot would argue that it's OK to kill babies.

When a foetus becomes a baby is a very different question. Until the so called "pro-life" lobby seriously addresses that question, those that do try to answer it are always likely to hold them in contempt

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 24 Jun 22 10.25pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Very sad day for the USA. Even if completely predictable, as soon as Trump bought off the "pro-life" lobby by promising to stuff the SCOTUS with political Justices.

What a complete shambles that country has become. Technologically highly advanced. Socially extremely backward.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
BlueJay Flag UK 24 Jun 22 10.44pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle


When a foetus becomes a baby is a very different question. Until the so called "pro-life" lobby seriously addresses that question, those that do try to answer it are always likely to hold them in contempt

To my mind it comes down to the number of weeks, and basing that on the science. Easier said than down of course as there are other attitudes at play in both 'pro' camps. But yes, attempting to strips people of their rights immediately at the point of conception is clearly quite mad, and not far off bursting in the blokes house to stop him having a w@nk. Though of course he would deem that outrageous, as that relates to his life rather than other peoples.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wilesy01's Profile Wilesy01 Flag Bristol 25 Jun 22 12.15am Send a Private Message to Wilesy01 Add Wilesy01 as a friend

Criminalising abortion won't stop abortion it'll just force it underground into unsafe and unregulated methods.

This ruling is going to kill more people than it saves. Sensible regulation is the answer not this partisan nonsense that seems to now be our modern political discourse.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
BlueJay Flag UK 25 Jun 22 12.47am

Originally posted by Wilesy01

Criminalising abortion won't stop abortion it'll just force it underground into unsafe and unregulated methods.

This ruling is going to kill more people than it saves. Sensible regulation is the answer not this partisan nonsense that seems to now be our modern political discourse.

It will be the poor paying the price and facing the consequences. Other people will go to neighbouring States. Any from conception abortion law (of which there are now automatically several) is an absurd affront to womens freedoms. Remember this momen and its knock on consequences when anyone for it talks of the importance of their own freedoms. They are after all clearly the only freedoms they care about.

Edited by BlueJay (25 Jun 2022 1.28am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View kevlee's Profile kevlee Flag born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 25 Jun 22 7.12am Send a Private Message to kevlee Add kevlee as a friend

Well, as they say, it could only happen in America...in 2022
Am I surprised? No. Maybe The Handmaids Tale is the future for some US states. String em up, send em back, why not re-introduce slavery?

 


Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 25 Jun 22 8.29am Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Lots of women shrieking online saying that it'll happen here next (ie the outlawing of abortion). Err...no it won't. Perhaps concentrate your hysteria on numerous other countries where abortion is at present either illegal or severely restricted.

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Online Flag 25 Jun 22 9.18am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

The land of the free?

This is from the BBC:

The reversal of a long-standing precedent has also raised fears for other rights decided upon by the Supreme Court in the past.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion, wrote: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" - referencing three landmark decisions of the past on the right to contraception, the repeal of anti-sodomy laws, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage respectively.

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 255 of 289 < 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > US politics