BF2S Forums Abortion

Dilbert_X wrote:

Fact is she should have picked her retirement date strategically, not 'pushed to beat a record', thats just ego.

The root of the problem is the Supreme court is determined politically - once again the writers of the constitution have fucked all following generations.

shouldve put in a mandatory retirement age

Last edited by Cybargs (2022-05-10 05:15:49)

i mean they could pass a law but here we are

Humoring that for a moment, even if she did die of COVID caught at the wedding, it wasn't because she wasn't wearing a mask. It was because other people weren't wearing masks. Didn't you ever read the guidelines on that stuff? Commentary from professionals? You would need PPE with oxygen and a positive pressure system to keep it out. How many people do you recall walking around NJ looking like spacemen?

Literally anyone on the SCt could have died of COVID. It makes more sense to be annoyed at her for hanging onto the position cancer after cancer, (gamble or no gamble for a more liberal president than Obama) than to buy into some wackadoodle conspiracy that even if true, would be cause for even less annoyance. Is metastatic pancreatic cancer really that difficult to believe.

Arizona soap opera:

GOP Senate Candidate Blake Masters Threatens Arizona Mirror With Lawsuit
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/go … r-13600540

It gets more amusing the longer you read it.

Reading the comments in liberal circles about SCOTUS is tedious. "The SCOTUS is going to strike down Brown vs. Board of Education and bring back segregation"
Me: "They can't do that since it would mean nullifying the 1964 Civil Rights Act"
"Roe v. Wade was law too and look what they did!"

Roe v. Wade wasn't law. It was a case. That was an issue that Democrats never corrected because frankly there wasn't a national consensus on the issue. After Brown vs. Board of Education, Democrats codified desegregation through a chain of civil rights acts in the 50's and 60's. They weren't easy to pass and Democrats paid a big price for them but they actually did the work instead of relying on SCOTUS decisions that obviously aren't reliable. And even though passing the civil rights act was difficult and costly, rolling it back is a politically impossibility.

I am not happy about the upcoming SCOTUS decision but Democrats need to put in the work and build a national consensus that could pass a law to codify whatever abortion rules they want. Shouldn't have been lazy about abortion if it means that much.

a case is a law. that’s what case law is. it sets a precedent. otherwise, no further objections ya honah.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Roe vs. Wade was never codified by Congress. The Clinton 90s might have been the best time to do so.

2009-2010 when democrats had majority in both house and senate in addition to Obama as president.

The worst fear of "abortions for all", I guess, is strange. Even now, I know plenty of people who had accidental pregnancies and still carried it to term -- not that people go advertising when they do have abortions, but even when the option has been on the table, it doesn't feel terribly common.

What a terrible moment in US History

War Man wrote:

Roe vs Wade is gone!!!

why are you so excited about this? does it affect your life that much?

men who are deeply invested in what women do with their bodies are creepy. stop it dude.

i will say, you are a very good and reliable advertisement for home schooling, war man. “let people choose how to educate and raise their children!”. just, er, don’t let them choose if they actually want children.

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-24 08:24:08)

Government gives the choice to the states. They'll all make reasonable laws with no bad consequences.

A bunch of childless men complaining about not being able to get a procedure that they don't even qualify for. Poor you.