Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring

[spurraider21]

boom

key swing vote on a lot of issues...

[ducks]

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP
USA USA USA USA USA USA

[spurraider21]

turtle pos... no problem rushing to get this shit through just 5 months before election after stonewalling for a full year last time

1012041524153024512

[Chucho]

turtle pos... no problem rushing to get this shit through just 5 months before election after stonewalling for a full year last time

1012041524153024512

Yah. Sucks, but alas in American politics to the victors belong the spoils.

[CosmicCowboy]

Lol let the games begin!

[SnakeBoy]

turtle pos... no problem rushing to get this shit through just 5 months before election after stonewalling for a full year last time

1012041524153024512

This isn't a presidential year. Biden rule does not apply.

[ducks]

that wricked witch is next :ihit
she falls asleep all the time now

[ducks]

Pres.Trump tells reporters he will select Kennedy replacement from the list of 25 he released previously, per kevinliptakcnn


NOTHING LIKE TRANSPARECY

[Quadzilla99]

Yah. Sucks, but alas in American politics to the victors belong the spoils.
This is a 2016 rule?

This isn't a presidential year. Biden rule does not apply.
We voted in the Biden year statement. I mean you're trolling but...

[spurraider21]

Yah. Sucks, but alas in American politics to the victors belong the spoils.
not like they were "victors" when they held the seat hostage after scalia croaked

[spurraider21]

This isn't a presidential year. Biden rule does not apply.
biden good now

[Chucho]

not like they were "victors" when they held the seat hostage after scalia croaked

They "won" (got their way), no?

[spurraider21]

They "won" (got their way), no?
they weren't winners at the time scalia croaked and they decided to not bring it to a vote. they were winners 9 months later

[SnakeBoy]

they weren't winners at the time scalia croaked and they decided to not bring it to a vote. they were winners 9 months later

they won the Senate son

[SnakeBoy]

This is a 2016 rule?

We voted in the Biden year statement. I mean you're trolling but...

I don't even know what you're talking about but it's different now is all that matters

https://media.giphy.com/media/9X5zV9eHAqAus/giphy.gif

[Blake]

Lol cheerleaders

[spurraider21]

they won the Senate son
ah, so if you have the senate, its just part of the game if you decide to block SCOTUS appointments, even for a full 4 years?

[boutons_deux]

with SCOTUS as solid 6-3, Notorious RBG has no reason to hang on, as she did expecting Hillary to name her replacement

To the bad-faith cheaters (Repugs, McConnell) go the spoils.

The Federalist Society, Heritage, Hoover Inst, Cato, etc must have a long list of cases to take to court, financed Gawker-style by the oligarchy, now that they own SCOTUS on behalf if the oligarchy.

The Mythical American Experiment is definitely over. The oligarchy rules, everybody else will get more and more fucked.

[SnakeBoy]

ah, so if you have the senate, its just part of the game if you decide to block SCOTUS appointments, even for a full 4 years?

Well it depends on which party has the Senate

[ducks]

The New York Times is urging Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy not to retire.

The newspaper's comments came in an editorial written as an open letter to Kennedy.

"As you have no doubt heard, rumors of your impending retirement are, for the second year in a row, echoing around Washington and across America," the newspaper said. “While you and your colleagues on the Supreme Court were listening to the final oral arguments of the term in recent days, those rumors were only growing more insistent.

"How can we put this the right way? Please don't go.

"Sitting between the four liberal justices and the four conservatives, you are the most powerful member of the most powerful court in the country, as you have been for at least a decade."

It noted Kennedy has delivered landmark legal victories for Americans, “from gays to lesbians seeking equal rights to African-American college students seeking a better education."

The Times pointed out that Republican lawmakers are referring to his departure as a "done deal."

"They smell blood — if they can install another rock-ribbed conservative like Neil Gorsuch, the court will have a locked-in right-wing majority for the rest of most of our lifetimes,” the newspaper said.

It said his record on the high court “is more conservative than liberal.” And the Times added: “But there’s no question that you are less of an ideologue than anyone President (Donald) Trump would pick."

The newspaper said: "We realize this isn’t an entirely fair request. Every 81-year-old, especially those who have devoted their lives to the service of their country, should have the freedom to retire without worrying that the nation’s future may hang in the balance. But this is the world we live in."

It said if Trump gets the opportunity to fill his seat on the court, “it will be the most conservative court in nearly a century."

The Times concluded: “This is your court, Justice Kennedy. It is facing an institutional crisis, and it needs you."



LOL TIMES!

[spurraider21]

kennedy is probably the best justice we've had in a while, all things considered. the courts are supposed to be apolitical. he does the best to embody that principle. made sense to replace scalia with another idealogue... all things all kept the status quo. but replacing kennedy with another gorsuch would be shitting on that seat, quite literally.

would have said the same if he was replaced by another sotomayor. garland would have been a good choice tbh...

[Pavlov]

not like they were "victors" when they held the seat hostage after scalia was assassinated by Hillary Clinton because he was about to expose her child sex trafficking.fixed

[ducks]

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he was launching an immediate search for someone to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom he hailed as a spectacular man with great vision and heart.

Speaking to reporters during an Oval Office meeting with Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Trump said he would draw from a list of 25 potential court candidates that his campaign had assembled during his presidential run.

[ducks]

Here are the potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Kennedy
From CNN's Ariane de Vogue
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is set to retire by July 31. Here's a short list of possible nominees who President Trump could select to replace him:

Brett Kavanaugh: He's a former Kennedy clerk. Kavanaugh was a late add to President Trump’s list of potential nominees, but many believe the 53-year-old judge who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, might be the favorite.
Amy Coney Barrett: She's a former Notre Dame professor and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. Barrett was President Donald Trump’s pick for a seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Raymond Kethledge: He also served as clerk for Kennedy. Kethledge, 51, currently sits on the 6th Circuit.His critics worry about an anti-union opinion he issued in a case brought by public school employees.
Amul Thapar: He is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's favorite. He was handpicked from McConnell to serve at the US Attorney for the District of Kentucky.
Sen. Mike Lee: Although Lee of Utah has never served as a judge, judicial conservatives feel confident that he would not surprise them on the Supreme Court.
Thomas Hardiman: He was runner up for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's seat.

[ducks]

President Trump asked Kennedy about who should replace him
From CNN's Kevin Liptak
President Trump said he asked retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy about possible names to replace him at the Supreme Court.

Trump, speaking in the Oval Office, said they “had a very deep discussion. I got his ideas on things."

"I asked him if he had certain people he had great respect for that could potentially take his seat," he said.
Trump said Kennedy was at the White House in the early afternoon and left a "little while ago."

[ducks]

Trump says Kennedy visited the White House before he announced his retirement
From CNN’s Kevin Liptak
President Trump says Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy visited the White House before his retirement announcement.

Justice Kennedy told his colleagues that he delivered personally the retirement letter to the President.

[SnakeBoy]

So it's going to be a 6-3 court when Trump leaves office

Damn, Democrats sure fucked up trying to force Hillary on the country :lol

[ducks]

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy just announced that he retiring from his position by the end of the next month.

Kennedy, who was sworn in as the 104th justice of the Supreme Court in 1988, has been involved in coauthoring major legal decisions that have shaped the United States as we know it today.

Here are a few of them:

June 29, 1992 — He angered conservatives by coauthoring, with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, the opinion of the court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to uphold Roe v. Wade.
March 1, 2005 — He wrote the majority opinion for the 5-4 ruling in Roper v. Simmons stating that executing killers who were under age 18 when they committed their crimes is unconstitutional.
April 18, 2007 — He voted with the conservatives in the 5-4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion to uphold the nationwide ban on partial birth abortions.
June 12, 2008 — In Boumediene v. Bush, Kennedy wrote the majority 5-4 opinion and assessed that the language of the Constitution grants the Guantanamo Bay prison detainees the right to seek habeas corpus.
June 25, 2012 — He wrote the opinion of the court in Arizona v. United States, overturning three sections of Arizona's 2010 immigration law.
June 26, 2013 — Kennedy wrote the majority opinion of the court in United States v. Windsor, striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act.
June 26, 2015 — He wrote the landmark majority opinion of the court in Obergefell v. Hodges, making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 US states.
June 23, 2016 — Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding the right of universities to consider race as one factor in admissions.

[ducks]

So it's going to be a 6-3 court when Trump leaves office

Damn, Democrats sure fucked up trying to force Hillary on the country :lol

:bobo

that is why the fbi was trying to stop trump!

[ducks]

Trump will push for swift confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice -- before the midterms
From CNN's Jeff Zeleny
A senior White House official says President Trump will push for the swift confirmation of a Supreme Court justice "before the midterm elections."

A list of well-established conservatives is in place, so a nomination is expected to come "within weeks," the official said.

[ducks]

U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, who is also a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, just released a statement calling on the Senate to wait to consider President Trump's nominee to replace Justice Kennedy until the new Congress is seated in January.

He cited precedent set by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland.

"Senator McConnell set the new standard by giving the American people their say in the upcoming election before Court vacancies are filled," Durbin said. "With so much at stake for the people of our country, the U.S. Senate must be consistent and consider the President’s nominee once the new Congress is seated in January."

[benefactor]

Careful not to go blind, ducks

[ducks]

"Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace said the impending retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will be "the biggest moment of the Trump presidency."

He said this judicial nomination will trump the meeting with Kim Jong Un, tax cut legislation and Trump's moves to deregulate the economy.

"This moment is the biggest opportunity so far," said Wallace, since 81-year-old Kennedy was the deciding vote many times in the middle of four conservative justices and four left-leaning justices.

[SnakeBoy]

U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, who is also a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, just released a statement calling on the Senate to wait to consider President Trump's nominee to replace Justice Kennedy until the new Congress is seated in January.

He cited precedent set by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland.

"Senator McConnell set the new standard by giving the American people their say in the upcoming election before Court vacancies are filled," Durbin said. "With so much at stake for the people of our country, the U.S. Senate must be consistent and consider the President’s nominee once the new Congress is seated in January."

:lmao

What a dumb fuck

[SnakeBoy]

The only thing Mitch is thinking

https://media.giphy.com/media/12cbv5IT3WvkDS/giphy.gif

[TeyshaBlue]

kennedy is probably the best justice we've had in a while, all things considered. the courts are supposed to be apolitical. he does the best to embody that principle. made sense to replace scalia with another idealogue... all things all kept the status quo. but replacing kennedy with another gorsuch would be shitting on that seat, quite literally.

would have said the same if he was replaced by another sotomayor. garland would have been a good choice tbh...

+10 :tu

[Quadzilla99]

They "won" (got their way), no?

Obama won in 2012 presumably with the right to nominate judges for four years and have them voted on like we have done since 1776

[ducks]

Anthony Kennedy retirement latest reason Democrats risk losing Supreme Court for generations
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/27/democrats-cant-surrender-senate-and-supreme-court-republicans-column/708784002/

[Chucho]

Obama won in 2012 presumably with the right to nominate judges for four years and have them voted on like we have done since 1776

Ding. :hat

[Quadzilla99]

Ding. :hat

Huh?

[boutons_deux]

Anthony Kennedy Is Not the Supreme Court’s Swing Justice Anymore

In all 14 5-4 decisions this term

that divided along ideological lines,

Kennedy has sided with the conservatives.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-is-not-the-supreme-courts-swing-justice-anymore/

[ducks]

After serving on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years, Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement -- leaving an open seat on the nation's highest court for President Trump to fill.

Kennedy, 81, said his retirement will be effective July 31. Last year, his former law clerk Neil Gorsuch took over the Supreme Court seat once occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Read on for a look at Kennedy's time on the nation's highest court and what's next for the vacant seat.

Kennedy has been on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years
Kennedy first took his seat on the Supreme Court on seat February 18, 1988. He was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.

He’s been a Supreme Court justice longer than any current member.

Kennedy wasn't always considered to be a swing vote on the court
By the end of his tenure, Kennedy was considered to be a swing vote on the court -- although it wasn't always that way. When he was first seated, Kennedy was considered to be part of the Court's more conservative block.

In April 2018, The New York Times' editorial board publicly asked Kennedy to avoid retiring, saying, "Your record is more conservative than liberal, but there's no question that you are less of an ideologue than anyone President Trump would pick."

He reaffirmed a woman's right to an abortion
In a statement regarding his retirement, the White House praised Kennedy for having "authored landmark opinions in every significant area of constitutional law, most notably on equal protections under the law, the separation of powers and the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and religion."

In 1992, Kennedy joined Justices David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor in co-writing the Supreme Court's opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. That case upheld women's right to have an abortion but also gave states more authority in how to regulate it.

In keeping with his penchant for believing in individual rights Kennedy agreed with the Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015.

Expect this vacancy to become a major point in this year's midterms
A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake.

That body will consider Trump's latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Neil Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold.

Fox News' Shannon Bream, Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.





Kaitlyn Schallhorn is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter: @K_Schallhorn.


LAW COMMUNITY

Explore Community
LIVE NEWS﹒ARTICLES﹒VIDEOS﹒DISCUSSIONS﹒SOCIAL MEDIA﹒AND MORE...
Trending in Politics
Longtime Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his plans to retire Wednesday, sparking reactions for lawmakers across the political isle.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement news draws reactions from lawmakers

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s announcement that he will retire from the Supreme Court on July 31 will likely trigger a confirmation battle the likes of which haven’t been seen since the hotly contested nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork.
Kennedy replacement could face battles seen by Bork, Thomas

After serving on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years, Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement -- leaving an open seat on the nation's highest court for President Trump to fill.
Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court: His legacy and the future of his seat

Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.
Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement, giving Trump 2nd Supreme Court pick

[ducks]

Dems Melt Down Over Kennedy Retirement
https://ntknetwork.com/dems-melt-down-over-kennedy-retirement/

[ducks]

Senator Jeff Merkley

@SenJeffMerkley
I’m worried about Roe v. Wade.

[boutons_deux]

Senator Jeff Merkley

@SenJeffMerkley
I’m worried about Roe v. Wade.

yep, abortion will be a crime again. 1000s of dead women and unwanted babies to follow, keeping poor women in poverty, just like Christ wants

[ducks]

Kamala Harris: Trump's list of potential nominees "are complete non-starters":nope

[ducks]

yep, abortion will be a crime again. 1000s of dead women to follow, just like Christ wantshow many dead children with abortation

very few woman would be dead if they have a baby with todays tech and advancement

[ducks]

yep, abortion will be a crime again. 1000s of dead women to follow, just like Christ wants

if I go kill a 26 month old that crosses the boarder illegally I would be in jail
woman kill their babies legally now
look at pics of womb they are living PEOPLE

[ducks]

yep, abortion will be a crime again. 1000s of dead women to follow, just like Christ wants

do not want kids stop fucking or use a condom!

[ducks]

Feinstein says there should be no consideration of a nominee until the midterm election

[ducks]

Chuck Schumer: New Supreme Court justice should be considered after election
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just spoke from the floor of the Senate and called the seat Justice Anthony Kennedy is leaving "the most important Supreme Court vacancy for this country in at least a generation."

Schumer then called on Republicans to "follow the rule they set in 2016 -- not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already announced he intends to hold a vote confirming President Trump's nominee this fall.

[ducks]

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar tweeted the American people must have a say. Her full tweet reads, “#Justice Kennedy was a swing vote in a critical case that affirmed Roe v. Wade. He was a key vote on gay marriage. He cannot be replaced by an ideologue. The American people must have a say.”

[ducks]

Judge Nap: The Key Issue After Justice Kennedy's Retirement Will Be Abortion

Judge Andrew Napolitano said Wednesday that after Justice Anthony Kennedy retires from the Supreme Court at the end of July, the key issue facing the court will be abortion.

Kennedy, 81, informed the White House of his plans Wednesday in a letter after 30 years of service.

Napolitano said on "The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino" that Kennedy has been the swing vote in hot-button cases.

He said that although Kennedy is Roman-Catholic and was appointed by Ronald Reagan, he's consistently sided with liberals on the topic of abortion.

[boutons_deux]

ducks

you're so goddamn fuckin stupid you don't have clue who's fucking you over, like all Trash supporters.

[CosmicCowboy]

Roe v wade will be fine.

[spurraider21]

Roe v wade will be fine.
im inclined to agree

its 45 year old precedent that was affirmed in casey v planned parenthood (although that case did away with the trimester stuff). you would think there would need to be some gargantuan showing of why they need to overturn it... tho we saw in today's ruling that some of these justices dont really have an issue overturning precedent willy nilly. but Roe was a 7-2 ruling. Casey was only 5-4

but that would be truly nuclear if they did. scalia had basically campaigned to overturn Roe while on the bench. in some of his dissents he would completely ignore and it say "abortion is not a fundamental right"... not even saying "abortion should not be..."

[ducks]

Anthony Kennedy's retirement just confirmed every Republican's dream scenario for Trump


https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/kennedy-retirement-donald-trump/index.html

[ducks]

, Thomas, at 70 years old, is now the oldest of the conservative justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both reliable liberals on the court, are 85 and 79 respectively.

[spurraider21]

meh. the dream scenario was having liberals leave the bench

[ducks]

Ruth needs to go!!!!!

[spurraider21]

, Thomas, at 70 years old, is now the oldest of the conservative justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both reliable liberals on the court, are 85 and 79 respectively.
unelected judges making law for decades good now

[SnakeBoy]

Obama won in 2012 presumably with the right to nominate judges for four years and have them voted on like we have done since 1776

He was able to nominate judges for 4 years

[SnakeBoy]

unelected judges making law for decades good now

Liberals have won conservatives over to their position. Congrats!

[Chris]

1012055352110706688

lmao

[spurraider21]

Liberals have won conservatives over to their position. Congrats!
supreme court is being boiled down to "who can nominate for 45 year old scalia/ginsberg idealogues"

[Chris]

1012053872016347138

Listen to the end. He knows it's coming.

[boutons_deux]

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

==============

Donald Trump’s judicial appointments may prove his most enduring legacy

Everything else could in theory be reversed. His effect on the law will be profound

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/13/donald-trumps-judicial-appointments-may-prove-his-most-enduring-legacy


===================

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/

===============

It was saggy-face Bitch-ass McConnell who blocked judges under Obama, then killing the "blue" rule under Trump to block the Dems from blocking Repug judges.


They are called "Trump's judges" but, ignorant of all of them AND the law, Trump blindly nominates whomever The Federalist Soc, etc hand to him.

[SnakeBoy]

supreme court is being boiled down to "who can nominate for 45 year old scalia/ginsberg idealogues"

You say this like it's something new.

[ducks]

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

==============

Donald Trump’s judicial appointments may prove his most enduring legacy

Everything else could in theory be reversed. His effect on the law will be profound

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/13/donald-trumps-judicial-appointments-may-prove-his-most-enduring-legacy


===================

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/

===============

It was saggy-face Bitch-ass McConnell who blocked judges under Obama, then killing the "blue" rule under Trump to block the Dems from blocking Repug judges.


They are called "Trump's judges" but, ignorant of all of them AND the law, Trump blindly nominates whomever The Federalist Soc, etc hand to him.



canada is not to far from the usa:hat

[SnakeBoy]

"It's imperative that the President's nominee be considered fairly and not subjected to personal attacks" said Mitch McConnell with a straight face

https://media.giphy.com/media/ZU9QbQtuI4Xcc/giphy.gif

[Chris]

1012078000538640389

[spurraider21]

You say this like it's something new.
kagan was 50
sotomayor was 54
breyer was 55
ginsburg was 60

average age of 55

thomas was 43
gorsuch was 49
roberts was 50
souter was 50
kennedy was 51
alito was 56

average age of 50

definitely a much younger skew on the conservative branch. not to mention garland, who obama nominated, was 63

before ginsburg, a democrat hadn't nominated a supreme court justice since 1968, and their last 3 nominees had been 58, 58, and 59

[SnakeBoy]

kagan was 50
sotomayor was 54
breyer was 55
ginsburg was 60

average age of 55

thomas was 43
gorsuch was 49
roberts was 50
souter was 50
kennedy was 51
alito was 56

average age of 50

definitely a much younger skew on the conservative branch. not to mention garland, who obama nominated, was 63

before ginsburg, a democrat hadn't nominated a supreme court justice since 1968, and their last 3 nominees had been 58, 58, and 59

Ah okay, I misread your post.

[SnakeBoy]

1012078000538640389

[Chris]

1012071040082685954

[Chris]

1012072742215036928

[spurraider21]

useful idiots

[baseline bum]

Well this country is completely fucked with a 6-3 Republican supreme court now.

[spurraider21]

Well this country is completely fucked with a 6-3 Republican supreme court now.
kennedy was a conservative. it's still 5-4.

but kennedy was not nearly as hyperpartisan as the others, so he was often the swing vote. it's just a much stronger 5-4 now

breyer and gisburg are old, though.

[Pavlov]

1012071040082685954How does culture bless people, Chris?

[spurraider21]

this is obviously outdated as it includes scalia, but you can basically replace him with gorsuch who is probably off the map to the right, or at the very least between thomas and alito

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2014/06/24/supreme-court-lineup/b70fec458c72197593c143a157a3298814c548c2/UP-SCOTUSweb-Artboard_2.png

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0

[baseline bum]

Any guesses for our new 6-3 court? Outlaw abortions? Trump gets to pardon self? Mandatory AR-15s in high schools?

[Chris]

How does culture bless people, Chris?

If your culture honors God you receive the blessing. Do I really need to explain this to you?

[Chris]

Next in line.


https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnyppagesix.files.wordpress.com%2F 2015%2F07%2F033015featuresjeaninepirrobz_108284267 .jpg%3Fquality%3D90%26strip%3Dall%26w%3D1200&f=1

[baseline bum]

kennedy was a conservative. it's still 5-4.

but kennedy was not nearly as hyperpartisan as the others, so he was often the swing vote. it's just a much stronger 5-4 now

breyer and gisburg are old, though.

Shit. Might as well be 6-3 with how far to right Trump's appointment will be.

[spurraider21]

Shit. Might as well be 6-3 with how far to right Trump's appointment will be.

it was a soft 5-4, now will be a strong 5-4

[Pavlov]

If your culture honors God you receive the blessing. Do I really need to explain this to you?And the blessing is what?

[Chris]

Ginsberg already set to retire so 6-3 not a far cry. 7-2 in the future is a strong possibility.

[ducks]

Shit. Might as well be 6-3 with how far to right Trump's appointment will be.elections have consequences
that is why the fbi broke the law trying to stop trump the clinton could not

[spurraider21]

Next in line.

Pirro
a) that's disgusting :lol

b) she has no appellate experience, was a judge for a total of 2 years, and hasn't been on the bench for 25 years

c) she's pro abortion. there goes your dream of overturning roe

[ducks]

Ginsberg already set to retire so 6-3 not a far cry. 7-2 in the future is a strong possibility.when

[SnakeBoy]

And the blessing is what?

A stacked Supreme Court

[Pavlov]

A stacked Supreme Courtlol circular reasoning.

Why are right wingers so bad at thinking?

[Chris]

when

According to Jacob Wohl within a year.

1012035153437134848

[monosylab1k]

If your culture honors God you receive the blessing. Do I really need to explain this to you?

What blessing are you receiving currently? Remember that you’re typing your reply from your room in your parents house, where you still live, single and alone, while Daddeh is watching Rachel Maddow at full volume in the den.

[monosylab1k]

A stacked Supreme Court

Darrin would approve of his understudy’s joke :tu

[SnakeBoy]

lol circular reasoning.

Why are right wingers so bad at thinking?

I don't like the weak "you're stupid" comeback that's so common from the boards enlightened liberals but

:lol you're so stupid

[Pavlov]

i
I don't like the weak "you're stupid" comeback that's so common from the boards enlightened liberals but

:lol you're so stupidI explained your error. It wasn't rocket science. That's the whole point.

[SnakeBoy]

iI explained your error. It wasn't rocket science. That's the whole point.

It wasn't an error, it wasn't rocket science, it was the point

but good job figuring it out genius

you get a cookie :lol

[Chris]

Poor Bernie :lol

1012072036590673927

[Trainwreck2100]

lel eat shit roe v wade

[Pavlov]

It wasn't an error, it wasn't rocket science, it was the point

but good job figuring it out genius

you get a cookie :lolIt was an error. If you wanted to make it on purpose to make yourself look stupid, congratulations.

[spurraider21]

According to Jacob Wohl within a year.

1012035153437134848
20 Year Old Financier and Political Commentator | Conservative, Trump Supporter, Zionist | Writer for http://TheGatewayPundit.com (https://t.co/Qg0ZaVi8k1)

seems legit

[ducks]

Experts: Next SCOTUS Justice Will Spell End to Legal Abortion

[SnakeBoy]

Any guesses for our new 6-3 court? Outlaw abortions? Trump gets to pardon self? Mandatory AR-15s in high schools?

Overturning Roe wouldn't outlaw abortions
Trump can already pardon himself
Only Dems want to force people to buy for profit products

[ducks]

Renato Mariotti
✔ renato_mariotti
Replying to renato_mariotti
We can be fairly confident that there are currently four votes to overturn Roe v. Wade on the Supreme Court—Thomas, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Alito. If President Trump selects a Supreme Court Justice similar to Gorsuch, that would be a fifth vote to overturn Roe.
11:17 AM - Jun 27, 2018

[spurraider21]

Experts: Next SCOTUS Justice Will Spell End to Legal Abortion
overturning Roe, if that happened, wouldn't make abortion illegal. it would just leave it up to the states.

[DarrinS]

Darrin would approve of his understudy’s joke :tu

Rent free

[DarrinS]

overturning Roe, if that happened, wouldn't make abortion illegal. it would just leave it up to the states.

it won’t happen

[Chris]

Renato Mariotti
✔ renato_mariotti
Replying to renato_mariotti
We can be fairly confident that there are currently four votes to overturn Roe v. Wade on the Supreme Court—Thomas, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Alito. If President Trump selects a Supreme Court Justice similar to Gorsuch, that would be a fifth vote to overturn Roe.
11:17 AM - Jun 27, 2018

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiaonrent.com%2Fforwards%2Fc %2Fchild-dog-praying-very-adorable%2Fres%2F0mytfx.jpg&f=1

[SnakeBoy]

These are the kind of winning things that happen when we elect a Godly man who goes to church as much as he can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there's a major occasion. And during the Sundays. He's a Sunday church person. He goes when he can.

[ducks]

Republicans seek to hold confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee around Labor Day
From CNN's Ariane de Vogue
The Republicans’ goal — as of now — is to hold a confirmation hearing for a new Supreme Court nominee around Labor Day, a congressional source told CNN.

The goal is to get the nominee in place for the start of the fall term, which begins the first Tuesday in October, the source said.

[spurraider21]

its very important to chris for the government to tell millions of women all across the country what individual decisions they can and cant make

also i dont think roberts is a slam dunk to overturn roe

[spurraider21]

These are the kind of winning things that happen when we elect a Godly man who goes to church as much as he can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there's a major occasion. And during the Sundays. He's a Sunday church person. He goes when he can.
:lol

[SnakeBoy]

its very important to chris for the government to tell millions of women all across the country what individual decisions they can and cant make

also i dont think roberts is a slam dunk to overturn roe

They won't. If they punt on cake baking they aren't going take on the shit storm of overturning Roe.

[ducks]

its very important to chris for the government to tell millions of women all across the country what individual decisions they can and cant make

also i dont think roberts is a slam dunk to overturn roe

must protect those children that can not speak for themselves




if the mother would die I say aboration could be an option however with todays tech and medical knowledge that should not happen much


if woman do not spread their pussy they would not get pregnant and have a baby they do not want!

if woman carried gun they would not get raped they could blow the bad man or woman up that wanted to rape them!

[boutons_deux]

overturning Roe, if that happened, wouldn't make abortion illegal. it would just leave it up to the states.

left up to the states, before Roe

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg/959px-Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg

Most of those green, blue, purple, yellow states would go red

[ducks]

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., changed his position in short order on whether the Senate chamber should take up the nomination of the next pick to sit on the Supreme Court before the midterm elections.

Blumenthal first told MSNBC he felt the Senate should not "artificially delay" a debate and vote on who will replace the retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Later Wednesday, however, he struck a different tone on Twitter:



chuck called him YOU DO AS I SAY OR NO MONEY FOR YOU!

[baseline bum]

if the mother would die I say aboration could be an option however with todays tech and medical knowledge that should not happen much


So shoot the mother is the abortion you'd be for?

[ducks]

So shoot the mother is the abortion you'd be for?

no shoot the would be raper who is trying to make the woman pregnant so she does not want an abortion

[spurraider21]

if woman do not spread their pussy they would not get pregnant and have a baby they do not want!
yup only people that get abortions are sluts and whores.

and that is totally something that should factor into constitutional interpretation

[boutons_deux]

Koch network gears up for the next Supreme Court vacancy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/28/koch-network-is-gearing-up-for-the-next-supreme-court-vacancy/?utm_term=.5eb556c8ec4e

Kock Bros bought Gorsuch a seat with $10Ms, now they plan to spend $10Ms more to buy Gorsuch 2.0, or worse, a seat.

The oligarchy owns and operates America, Americans need not bother to vote, both parties are totally corrupted by oligarchy $Bs and ignore voter preferences.

[ducks]

nothing wrong with protected sex

[ducks]

Koch network gears up for the next Supreme Court vacancy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/28/koch-network-is-gearing-up-for-the-next-supreme-court-vacancy/?utm_term=.5eb556c8ec4e

Kock Bros bought Gorsuch a seat with $10Ms, now they plan to spend $10Ms more to buy Gorsuch 2.0, or worse, a seat.

The oligarchy owns and operates America, Americans need not bother to vote, both parties are totally corrupted by oligarchy $Bs and ignore voter preferences.


george soros spent more on elections

[spurraider21]

nothing wrong with protected sex
is it supreme court's job to tell people to wear condoms?

that the pregnancy could have been avoided either by abstinence or contraception is none of the court's business

[ducks]

killing children is

[ducks]

is it supreme court's job to tell people to wear condoms?

that the pregnancy could have been avoided either by abstinence or contraception is none of the court's business kids inside the womb are just much kids as a 1 month old outside the womb


if spur raider21 left a one month old baby in a car and she or he died from the heat or cold spurraider21 would be charged with murder




liberals are all for kids that are not legal citizens for their rights but not legal citizens for the unborn

[baseline bum]

no shoot the would be raper who is trying to make the woman pregnant so she does not want an abortion

You said abortion could be an option if the mother dies too. How would you kill her to abort?

[monosylab1k]

Rent free

He’s your understudy, I’m just sayin he’s doing a great job.

[spurraider21]

kids inside the womb are just much kids as a 1 month old outside the womb
this is why there is no constitutional right to an abortion post-viability. at that point the state's interest in the child is great enough to outweigh the mother's choice


if spur raider21 left a one month old baby in a car and she or he died from the heat or cold spurraider21 would be charged with murder
of course. or at the very least negligent homicide


liberals are all for kids that are not legal citizens for their rights but not legal citizens for the unborn
differentiate between born and unborn.

[Trill Clinton]

Is there a non troll take on the significance of this? So far all I see is how people are just happy to troll liberals. Nothing about how this affects America as a whole.

[ducks]

this is why there is no constitutional right to an abortion post-viability. at that point the state's interest in the child is great enough to outweigh the mother's choice


of course. or at the very least negligent homicide


differentiate between born and unborn.
the unborn you can not see but you can feel that is the only difference

[spurraider21]

the unborn you can not see but you can feel that is the only difference
it's really about viability. which is the point at which the child can survive outside the mother. if you are before that point, its the mothers call. if you are after that point, the state can step in and stop an abortion

[Chris]

Is there a non troll take on the significance of this? So far all I see is how people are just happy to troll liberals. Nothing about how this affects America as a whole.

Troll Clinton lookin for non troll takes.

[Chris]

1012111855291023360

[Trill Clinton]

Troll Clinton lookin for non troll takes.

I don't do the troll thing.

[Chucho]

Is there a non troll take on the significance of this? So far all I see is how people are just happy to troll liberals. Nothing about how this affects America as a whole.


It's no different than Libs who troll Repubs about Russia. But, no political bias, right?

[Chris]

I don't do the troll thing.

My arse in a blender.

[rmt]

it's really about viability. which is the point at which the child can survive outside the mother. if you are before that point, its the mothers call. if you are after that point, the state can step in and stop an abortion

According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Is that for all states? Don't the liberal ones allow late stage abortions? Does it take 6 months to decide to have an abortion?

The survival rate now is probably better than in 2005.

[spurraider21]

According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Is that for all states? Don't the liberal ones allow late stage abortions? Does it take 6 months to decide to have an abortion?

The survival rate now is probably better than in 2005.
states can allow them as late as they want.

but the constitutional protections are different. thats the limit at which states cannot restrict them

[baseline bum]

if spur raider21 left a one month old baby in a car and she or he died from the heat or cold spurraider21 would be charged with murder


What if he peed in front of a 13 year old one?

[rmt]

states can allow them as late as they want.

but the constitutional protections are different. thats the limit at which states cannot restrict them

The point of viability keeps moving as technology improves? So, say, Alabama can't restrict abortions before 24-25 (or 23 or whatever it is now) weeks?

[spurraider21]

The point of viability keeps moving as technology improves?
yup. that was the big ramification of planned parenthood v casey in the late 90's. after roe v wade, they used the trimester system... as in during the first trimester, it was nearly impossible to restrict abortion, and in the third trimester, state could basically do whatever it wanted, and 2nd trimester was the gray area.

after Casey, they scrapped that and instead looked at pre and post viability. and yes, as medicine/technology progresses, viability gets pushed closer and closer to conception.


So, say, Alabama can't restrict abortions before 24-25 (or 23 or whatever it is now) weeks?
it's not that they "can't restrict" but any restriction would face strict scrutiny. basically the state would need to show that the restriction is necessary to further a compelling state interest. which effectively means they cant barring something extraordinary. this is what is referred to as strict scrutiny. there's an expression that goes "strict in theory, fatal in fact" which means "strict scrutiny" is basically legal code for "you cant touch it"

i'm not sure exactly what week it is... and i dont think its really a bright line of how many weeks. its more of a case by case basis where the doctor determines the viability at that point.


but the general rule would be:

before viability, there is a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion, which states cant infringe on (rationale being at that point, the mother's interest of privacy/choice outweigh the state's interest in preserving the potential life)

after viability, states can pass restrictions, as the constitutional protections are much weaker here.


overturning roe would basically scrap the entire notion of a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion at any stage, which would open the door for states to pass complete bans. but even then, states like CA or NY will still allow abortions. the misconception is that overturning roe = outlawing abortion federally

[rmt]

yup. that was the big ramification of planned parenthood v casey in the late 90's. after roe v wade, they used the trimester system... as in during the first trimester, it was nearly impossible to restrict abortion, and in the third trimester, state could basically do whatever it wanted, and 2nd trimester was the gray area.

after Casey, they scrapped that and instead looked at pre and post viability. and yes, as medicine/technology progresses, viability gets pushed closer and closer to conception.


it's not that they "can't restrict" but any restriction would face strict scrutiny. basically the state would need to show that the restriction is necessary to further a compelling state interest. which effectively means they cant barring something extraordinary. this is what is referred to as strict scrutiny. there's an expression that goes "strict in theory, fatal in fact" which means "strict scrutiny" is basically legal code for "you cant touch it"

i'm not sure exactly what week it is... and i dont think its really a bright line of how many weeks. its more of a case by case basis where the doctor determines the viability at that point.


but the general rule would be:

before viability, there is a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion, which states cant infringe on (rationale being at that point, the mother's interest of privacy/choice outweigh the state's interest in preserving the potential life)

after viability, states can pass restrictions, as the constitutional protections are much weaker here.


overturning roe would basically scrap the entire notion of a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion at any stage, which would open the door for states to pass complete bans. but even then, states like CA or NY will still allow abortions. the misconception is that overturning roe = outlawing abortion federally

Thanks for the thorough explanation.

[spurraider21]

although if something truly nutty happens and not only does SCOTUS overturn Roe but then also establishes that abortions themselves are unconstitutional... i'd think you'd see a revolution tbh :lol

[Chris]

21 big timing again.

[boutons_deux]

although if something truly nutty happens and not only does SCOTUS overturn Roe but then also establishes that abortions themselves are unconstitutional... i'd think you'd see a revolution tbh :lol

nah, americans are too busy eating themselves sick and watching teevee

I expect a pro-birth assholes will push sooner or later a suit to a right wing appeals courts and/or SCOTUS claiming abortion is murder from conception, therefore always illegal.

[monosylab1k]

21 big timing again.

Well hey, at least you got him beat at misinterpreting Bible verses to fit your political beliefs.

[Chris]

Well hey, at least you got him beat at misinterpreting Bible verses to fit your political beliefs.

Looks like you misinterpreted my post trying to get your snark in.

[Spurtacular]

boom

key swing vote on a lot of issues...

Many liberals have told me that SC justices just go by the book. You have nothing to worry about, obviously.

[SnakeBoy]

overturning roe would basically scrap the entire notion of a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion at any stage, which would open the door for states to pass complete bans. but even then, states like CA or NY will still allow abortions. the misconception is that overturning roe = outlawing abortion federally

I guess that would be true in theory but in practice I don't see any state doing an outright ban. More likely they would just move forward with requirements for abortion providers that would make it near impossible to keep their doors open. Like Texas tried by requiring hospital privileges for abortion clinics. With a strong conservative court they might not need to repeal Roe v Wade to get away with such things.

[Floyd Pacquiao]

:lol :tu Ducks is happier than a pig in shit. I can literally feel his glee through my screen

[rmt]

:lol :tu Ducks is happier than a pig in shit. I can literally feel his glee through my screen

He's got a lot to be happy about this week - probably as much as the NK week.

[TeyshaBlue]

Any guesses for our new 6-3 court? Outlaw abortions? Trump gets to pardon self? Mandatory AR-15s in high schools?

Say hello to Justice Hannity.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think duck is literally the only one in here that wants abortion illegal.

[ducks]

I think duck is literally the only one in here that wants abortion illegal.

Are you not glad your mom let you be born? Others like you would like to be born also!!
Do you not think they should experience the highs and lows of life like you?

[ducks]

, Thomas, at 70 years old, is now the oldest of the conservative justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both reliable liberals on the court, are 85 and 79 respectively.
Would it be something if Ruth,Stephen and Thomas retire before Trump two terms are up also.
And replace with 50 year olds

[ducks]

Thank God Trump was elected and not Hillary, otherwise we would get a judge who has no knowledge of the US Constitution. The scary fact is the Hillary thought and admitted that in the debate

[Chucho]

LOL, it's gonna be a super ultra conservative Supreme Court soon. I wish I could be a fly on the wall on a typical misinformed Alt Leftist's house to hear the faggy meltdown.

[SnakeBoy]

Would it be something if Ruth,Stephen and Thomas retire before Trump two terms are up also.
And replace with 50 year olds

https://media.giphy.com/media/S3Ot3hZ5bcy8o/giphy.gif

[Chris]

1012093268044152832

[Quadzilla99]

He was able to nominate judges for 4 years

And have them voted on was the part of that you ignored

[SnakeBoy]

And have them voted on was the part of that you ignored

He shouldn't have lost the Senate. Elections have consequences.

[Chucho]

1012093268044152832

Good. Really good. If guns only killed as many as irresponsible cunts then maybe anti-gun pussies would be taken a little more seriously. Wire hangers and Doctors who couldn't manage a normal practice are more deadly then guns.

[Chucho]

He shouldn't have lost the Senate. Elections have consequences.


Savage with det truf.

[Chris]

Good. Really good. If guns only killed as many as irresponsible cunts then maybe anti-gun pussies would be taken a little more seriously. Wire hangers and Doctors who couldn't manage a normal practice are more deadly then guns.

I was thinking today how many times I heard about Roe vs. Wade in high school and what a glorious decision it was. Our Journalism class devoted an entire quarter of the final exam to it.

[Quadzilla99]

He shouldn't have lost the Senate. Elections have consequences.

Starting in 2016

[Chucho]

I was thinking today how many times I heard about Roe vs. Wade in high school and what a glorious decision it was. Our Journalism class devoted an entire quarter of the final exam to it.

Murder is illegal except if you decide to be irresponsible despite (unless you're fucking Boots or DerpJohn levels of retarded) simple cause and effect knowledge of unprotected sex. It's a god damn shame and the fact that abhorrent Leftist Nazis like Hillary co-sign murder because human lives that can't vote are worthless to her and hence the push for illegal immigrants having more rights than unborn, but living Muricans have because stretch marks and "leading a life" weighs heavier than casual murder in our shit society. This is one conservative value I can never compromise. It's disgusting to me that unwanted cats and dogs will outlive innocent lives and that these living, breathing human beings are discarded as garbage. It's vile, disgusting and it's murder and shows how laughable those that argue with "science" and/or human rights are and just how really disingenuous they are.

[Quadzilla99]

I was thinking today how many times I heard about Roe vs. Wade in high school and what a glorious decision it was. Our Journalism class devoted an entire quarter of the final exam to it.

You prefer back alley abortions rather than safe one I guess? since that's all that will happen

[Chucho]

You prefer back alley abortions rather than safe one I guess? since that's all that will happen

Personally, I prefer no murder. You dont?

[AaronY]

I think duck is literally the only one in here that wants abortion illegal.
Chris and chucho seem to.

I do too (srs) it would be a phenomenal thing for the left to campaign on in 2020

[SnakeBoy]

Chris and chucho seem to.

I do too (srs) it would be a phenomenal thing for the left to campaign on in 2020

lol not going to happen.

[SnakeBoy]

Sometimes I dream, the GOP is as stupid as the DNC

[Chucho]

Chris and chucho seem to.

I do too (srs) it would be a phenomenal thing for the left to campaign on in 2020

Yup. I'll never be ok with murder.

[Chucho]

If you cosign murder because a human life that was knowingly created is inconvenient and want to preach about any form of morality, you're a fraud to me.

[AaronY]

You guys should also bring back the draft. And immediately end that socialistic social security program

[Chucho]

Same difference with anyone who wants to support an arguement with "science" and denies a fetus is a human life. Disgusting and laughable.

[SnakeBoy]

Same difference with anyone who wants to support an arguement with "science" and denies a fetus is a human life. Disgusting and laughable.

Well the question isn't when life begins, science tells us undeniably that it begins at conception. That is not open to debate. The question is when does a person become endowed with unalienable rights.

The left apparently believes a child becomes coated with these rights only when they pass through the vaginal canal.

Personally, I'm pro choice with a strict time limit so as King of the USA I would declare that a child receives these rights at the end of the first trimester. Why the first trimester? you may ask, well because I'm King of the USA and I'm allowed to deny science if I want to.

[SnakeBoy]

Also if 3 months isn't long enough to make your choice then gfy

[boutons_deux]

K swung conservative more than liberalhttps://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/rSulQHNwsUb0sndZ5UAQ6J2O9LzfU8EMRFo2D588GXWOe5FMKE oNOgi3AmAPIyN3zagoFMjU6nn-Zebe2MT2InjDrDIBUo__JaFRjLotehp3BGllcZTTXvzaSBVkuv bAEy7hDR8Uj68hmocPQvo_mT99g5hMZTf_eNuxxSE=s0-d-e1-ft#https://gallery.mailchimp.com/f089ecc9238c5ee13b8e5f471/images/413db6f7-e6ec-47ad-95ac-81b8e499e2fb.jpg

[spurraider21]

Well the question isn't when life begins, science tells us undeniably that it begins at conception. That is not open to debate.
What? Maybe not to you. I think the argument can be made, and i think on this very forum I’ve taken that position as well. But not gonna pretend it’s some settled truth.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/amp
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_t he_answer_is_over_time.html

[Chucho]

Well the question isn't when life begins, science tells us undeniably that it begins at conception. That is not open to debate. The question is when does a person become endowed with unalienable rights.

The left apparently believes a child becomes coated with these rights only when they pass through the vaginal canal.

Personally, I'm pro choice with a strict time limit so as King of the USA I would declare that a child receives these rights at the end of the first trimester. Why the first trimester? you may ask, well because I'm King of the USA and I'm allowed to deny science if I want to.


To be fair, both sides don't care about anyone who can't vote for them. What this shows tho is the Left's hypocrisy when they argue "science" in gender debates or other debates or when they debate about civil rights and ethical treatment of illegal aliens. It's disingenuous when they make these arguments, not everyone but most hardcore Far Leftists.

[boutons_deux]

why don't you and all pro-birthers go after fertilization clinics that dump "living" embryos?

[spurraider21]

To be fair, both sides don't care about anyone who can't vote for them. What this shows tho is the Left's hypocrisy when they argue "science" in gender debates or other debates or when they debate about civil rights and ethical treatment of illegal aliens. It's disingenuous when they make these arguments, not everyone but most hardcore Far Leftists.
lol. the topic of abortion isn't some scientific consensus. it's ultimately a question of ethics and morality. now, the question of whether or not the earth's climate is changing due to increased CO2 emissions? that can be quantified.

the issue of whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal, if it should be considered murder... those are not questions that scientific paper will conclude with

[Chucho]

lol. the topic of abortion isn't some scientific consensus. it's ultimately a question of ethics and morality. now, the question of whether or not the earth's climate is changing due to increased CO2 emissions? that can be quantified.

the issue of whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal, if it should be considered murder... those are not questions that scientific paper will conclude with


The "people who argue science" point is aimed at the "when life starts" rhetoric and how it's used to justify murder.

[Chucho]

why don't you and all pro-birthers go after fertilization clinics that dump "living" embryos?


You're one upset little sociopathic Nazi today. Mad that you're Alt Left Nazi Party is getting effed in the A by a party ran by a fucking clown. :lol

[spurraider21]

The "people who argue science" point is aimed at the "when life starts" rhetoric and how it's used to justify murder.
yes, and the "when life starts" question is not one that has been answered by some scientific consensus

again, i tend to think its closer to conception than most liberals would be comfortable with... but at this point that's my opinion. there isn't really a big field of science devoted to answering the question of when life truly starts in the course of human reproduction

[Chucho]

yes, and the "when life starts" question is not one that has been answered by some scientific consensus

again, i tend to think its closer to conception than most liberals would be comfortable with... but at this point that's my opinion. there isn't really a big field of science devoted to answering the question of when life truly starts

I understand that. It's not aimed at the whole group, but at the people who use the "science" argument and there is a large concentration of pro-choicers that use that argument.

[spurraider21]

i dont think that "people should be pro abortion" or anything like that. if you personally are not comfortable with the idea of it, then by all means live your life by your beliefs.

but this isn't some issue where 98% of the population clearly believes it's absolutely wrong and you have some 2% fringe out there cutting women's stomachs open and terminating pregnancies for sport.

it's a legitimate question of morality with no clear consensus one way or another. it's why i cant wrap my head around "i think its wrong, so i think it should be illegal for everyone."

[spurraider21]

I understand that. It's not aimed at the whole group, but at the people who use the "science" argument and there is a large concentration of pro-choicers that use that argument.
i dont really get what you're saying. if somebody's position is squarely against an accepted scientific consensus, i think there's a good basis to say "your position is against science" (though thats a pretty elementary way to phrase it).

i dont think the abortion question really qualifies

[Chucho]

i dont think that "people should be pro abortion" or anything like that. if you personally are not comfortable with the idea of it, then by all means live your life by your beliefs.

but this isn't some issue where 98% of the population clearly believes it's absolutely wrong and you have some 2% fringe out there cutting women's stomachs open and terminating pregnancies for sport.

it's a legitimate question of morality with no clear consensus one way or another. it's why i cant wrap my head around "i think its wrong, so i think it should be illegal for everyone."

I get you, and so you can get me a little more, it is something I can't compromise but do understand the need to evaluate on a case by case basis. That said, I don't push my feelings or beliefs on anyone in any major way and beat dead horses here.

My posts on this subject were specific to this thread and the things I address are aimed to the hypocrites that argue the points I find and cite as hypocritical. Didn't/doesn't really go much further and definitely don't expect me to push this anywhere outside this thread. That's all, really.

[spurraider21]

I get you, and so you can get me a little more, it is something I can't compromise but do understand the need to evaluate on a case by case basis. That said, I don't push my feelings or beliefs on anyone in any major way and beat dead horses here.

My posts on this subject were specific to this thread and the things I address are aimed to the hypocrites that argue the points I find and cite as hypocritical. Didn't/doesn't really go much further and definitely don't expect me to push this anywhere outside this thread. That's all, really.
its just hard to reconcile the claim that you dont want to push your beliefs on anyone and yet want it to be illegal for everyone. unless i've misstated your position, of course

[Chucho]

i dont really get what you're saying. if somebody's position is squarely against an accepted scientific consensus, i think there's a good basis to say "your position is against science" (though thats a pretty elementary way to phrase it).

i dont think the abortion question really qualifies

Would you agree there is a contingency of pro-choicers that employ the "it's not a life" argument?

If so, would you agree that those people argue "science sez" (kind of like the gender fluid "science sez/doesn't say", there isn't a scientific consensus there but it's still argued) ?

That same audience is generally deep rooted Leftists. You can't deny that "morality" and decency isn't a talking point/bragging right of the Left, the Left's candidate lost her lead calling people who didn't agree with them on most issues as "deplorable". I don't know how that can't be taken as a "holier-than-thou" statement. This is the audience my feelings and statements are targeted at.

For example, discussing the Mexicans who get separated from their families- an unabashed, staunch Leftist like RG calls it "evil". Objectively, how much recourse does the government have when the law is being enforced? The law is consensus and fully objective. Who's the authoritarian to deem what evil? I'd bet dollars to pesos that RG is hardcore pro-choice and would probably argue with the established, but not consensus, science that states it isn't a life and why it isn't "evil" to kill a baby but "Evil" to separate a child from their family when their family broke an objective law.

I completely understand and admit it goes both ways but my argument/stance isn't aimed at a whole group and I'm not generalizing a whole group, I'm arguing against a specific group that is large inside of the whole group.

[spurraider21]

Would you agree there is a contingency of pro-choicers that employ the "it's not a life" argument?
oh, i'm sure there are. i dont know that they'll take that position up until the moment of birth. again, there is legitimate scientific question as to when we could consider a developing zygote/embryo/fetus a life.


If so, would you agree that those people argue "science sez" (kind of like the gender fluid "science sez/doesn't say", there isn't a scientific consensus there but it's still argued) ?
yeah. i lot of people who argue things like climate change dont know shit about the science either. al gore is a good example of a guy who got a good amount of the science wrong in his movie. i dont really know all that much about the scientific argument about gender. sex is defined by your body parts/chromosomes. gender is a social construct and identity. i learned about that in like 2005-2006 when taking AP psych, so i dont think thats some recent political agenda. it does frustrate me when people use sex and gender interchangeably when having this discussion. not surprised it happens on this forum, but its frustrating when more intelligent commentators like ben shapiro do the exact same thing


That same audience is generally deep rooted Leftists. You can't deny that "morality" and decency isn't a talking point/bragging right of the Left, the Left's candidate lost her lead calling people who didn't agree with them on most issues as "deplorable". I don't know how that can't be taken as a "holier-than-thou" statement. This is the audience my feelings and statements are targeted at.
both the left and right always claim to have the moral high ground on every issue, so i dont know that its a "leftist" trait.

then again, i think the leftists you are talking about probably wouldn't agree with you that abortions themselves are immoral. so they aren't really sacrificing the moral high ground as they think they are arguing a morally correct position. its only contradictory if they're like "well i know abortions are immoral, but i'm going to support them anyway"


For example, discussing the Mexicans who get separated from their families- an unabashed, staunch Leftist like RG calls it "evil". Objectively, how much recourse does the government have when the law is being enforced? The law is consensus and fully objective. Who's the authoritarian to deem what evil? I'd bet dollars to pesos that RG is hardcore pro-choice and would probably argue with the established, but not consensus, science that states it isn't a life and why it isn't "evil" to kill a baby but "Evil" to separate a child from their family when their family broke an objective law.
that makes sense if you believe in the following construct:

legal = good
illegal = evil

plus, not everybody will consider a 20 week old fetus to be the same as a born child. so it wouldn't really be right to compare separating that child to taking action against the fetus. you aren't working from equal starting points to draw those comparisons.


I completely understand and admit it goes both ways but my argument/stance isn't aimed at a whole group and I'm not generalizing a whole group, I'm arguing against a specific group that is large inside of the whole group.
i feel you. it frustrates me when somebody who happens to agree with my ultimate position bastardizes it by arguing in a horrible way. i see that on this forum with a lot of posters tbh

[Chucho]

oh, i'm sure there are. i dont know that they'll take that position up until the moment of birth. again, there is legitimate scientific question as to when we could consider a developing zygote/embryo/fetus a life.


yeah. i lot of people who argue things like climate change dont know shit about the science either. al gore is a good example of a guy who got a good amount of the science wrong in his movie. i dont really know all that much about the scientific argument about gender. sex is defined by your body parts/chromosomes. gender is a social construct and identity. i learned about that in like 2005-2006 when taking AP psych, so i dont think thats some recent political agenda. it does frustrate me when people use sex and gender interchangeably when having this discussion. not surprised it happens on this forum, but its frustrating when more intelligent commentators like ben shapiro do the exact same thing


both the left and right always claim to have the moral high ground on every issue, so i dont know that its a "leftist" trait.

then again, i think the leftists you are talking about probably wouldn't agree with you that abortions themselves are immoral. so they aren't really sacrificing the moral high ground as they think they are arguing a morally correct position. its only contradictory if they're like "well i know abortions are immoral, but i'm going to support them anyway"


that makes sense if you believe in the following construct:

legal = good
illegal = evil

plus, not everybody will consider a 20 week old fetus to be the same as a born child. so it wouldn't really be right to compare separating that child to taking action against the fetus. you aren't working from equal starting points to draw those comparisons.


i feel you. it frustrates me when somebody who happens to agree with my ultimate position bastardizes it by arguing in a horrible way. i see that on this forum with a lot of posters tbh


:bobo

Good stuff and your civility and maturity is very refreshing and appreciated.

...and this is my "serious" posts quota for the next two years.... :)

[SnakeBoy]

What? Maybe not to you. I think the argument can be made, and i think on this very forum I’ve taken that position as well. But not gonna pretend it’s some settled truth.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/amp
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_t he_answer_is_over_time.html

Those are silly articles not science. The debate is over I said.

[spurraider21]

Those are silly articles not science. The debate is over I said.
got any good links to share?

[rmt]

I don't agree that it's a moral issue in that sense - it seems that people/courts are more likely to oppose abortion if the fetus is viable - with that week being a moving target as technology improves. Is a (same week) baby in the womb in 2005 or 2018 or 2068 any more deserving of a chance of life depending on the level of technology available at the time. Who is to tell whether a particular baby falls in the 25%, 50%, 90% chance of living outside the womb. Are you morally justified with abortion in 2005 but a murderer in 2068? That baby is at the same stage of development in either year.

[spurraider21]

I don't agree that it's a moral issue in that sense - it seems that people/courts are more likely to oppose abortion if the fetus is viable - with that week being a moving target as technology improves. Is a (same week) baby in the womb in 2005 or 2018 or 2068 any more deserving of a chance of life depending on the level of technology available at the time. Who is to tell whether a particular baby falls in the 25%, 50%, 90% chance of living outside the womb. Are you morally justified with abortion in 2005 but a murderer in 2068? That baby is at the same stage of development in either year.
again, i dont know that states use a specific week as the cutoff point for all abortions. i could be wrong there. but my understanding is that viability is considered on a case by case basis.

[SnakeBoy]

got any good links to share?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGyRD9HnXVs

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGyRD9HnXVs
oh thanks

could have at least included the preceding porno

[baseline bum]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzVHjg3AqIQ

[ducks]

REPORT: Woman Has Boyfriend Punch Stomach Repeatedly To Kill Unborn Baby, County Weighing Murder Charge
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32445/woman-reportedly-has-boyfriend-punch-her-stomach-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

[Chris]

REPORT: Woman Has Boyfriend Punch Stomach Repeatedly To Kill Unborn Baby, County Weighing Murder Charge
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32445/woman-reportedly-has-boyfriend-punch-her-stomach-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

Blue state issues, God help us.

[Pavlov]

Blue state issues, God help us.
Red county issues.

[SnakeBoy]

REPORT: Woman Has Boyfriend Punch Stomach Repeatedly To Kill Unborn Baby, County Weighing Murder Charge
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32445/woman-reportedly-has-boyfriend-punch-her-stomach-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand


In other words, the two conspired together, and executed a plot to kill a seven-and-a-half-month-old baby inside the womb.

In a morally just world, these two would be charged.

But they likely won't be, for the mother consented to the murder of her child, thus linking it to legalized abortion reality (and "choice" talking points), and somehow making it an acceptable act that would bypass such charges.

Liberal logic

[Pavlov]

Liberal logic:lol "Bakersfield liberals"

[rmt]

REPORT: Woman Has Boyfriend Punch Stomach Repeatedly To Kill Unborn Baby, County Weighing Murder Charge
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32445/woman-reportedly-has-boyfriend-punch-her-stomach-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

That's so disgusting.

[dbestpro]

One of the things I read that has not been posted in this thread is the reason Justice Kennedy is retiring is so that he can be replaced by a conservative before the election. This seems to balance the cries of the left who are trying to find a way to flip the inevitable outcome.

[SnakeBoy]

One of the things I read that has not been posted in this thread is the reason Justice Kennedy is retiring is so that he can be replaced by a conservative before the election. This seems to balance the cries of the left who are trying to find a way to flip the inevitable outcome.

It's not inevitable, Democrats have a well thought out plan to stop it

Come up with some tactics to block the nomination
Win the Senate this fall
Hold the seat open for 2 years
Hold onto the Senate and win the White House in 2020
Then nominate a liberal to fill the seat and somehow stop the Republicans from copying the same tactics they came up with to block the nomination in the first place

[pgardn]

Would you agree there is a contingency of pro-choicers that employ the "it's not a life" argument?

If so, would you agree that those people argue "science sez" (kind of like the gender fluid "science sez/doesn't say", there isn't a scientific consensus there but it's still argued) ?

That same audience is generally deep rooted Leftists. You can't deny that "morality" and decency isn't a talking point/bragging right of the Left, the Left's candidate lost her lead calling people who didn't agree with them on most issues as "deplorable". I don't know how that can't be taken as a "holier-than-thou" statement. This is the audience my feelings and statements are targeted at.

For example, discussing the Mexicans who get separated from their families- an unabashed, staunch Leftist like RG calls it "evil". Objectively, how much recourse does the government have when the law is being enforced? The law is consensus and fully objective. Who's the authoritarian to deem what evil? I'd bet dollars to pesos that RG is hardcore pro-choice and would probably argue with the established, but not consensus, science that states it isn't a life and why it isn't "evil" to kill a baby but "Evil" to separate a child from their family when their family broke an objective law.

I completely understand and admit it goes both ways but my argument/stance isn't aimed at a whole group and I'm not generalizing a whole group, I'm arguing against a specific group that is large inside of the whole group.

Wait, wait, wait...

Science says nothing actually.

Science says what is your definition of life? and further a human life for philosophy
In textbooks for students they attempt to define what they are going to use as a working definition of life.

Sure pro abortion/choice are going to bring up this point. And sure some are going to say it’s not a life because... but I would say that’s a minority. What they will say is YOU go to the women and tell her she can’t do that and then YOU adopt the child. Saying life begins at conception is really quite silly. You are using a scientific sequence of events to set a judgement about what life, and a human life, is. That’s treading on philosophical grounds. You really got to do some pontification and shaky logic.

Having said all this I totally respect the pro life movement and those that step to the plate (adopt)

[boutons_deux]

Loans of over $1 Billion to Trump by SCOTUS justice Kennedy's son, but nothing to see here... (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/28/1776541/-Loans-of-over-1-Billion-to-Trump-by-SCOTUS-justice-Kennedy-s-son-but-nothing-to-see-here)

Anthony Kennedy’s son works for Deutschbank and has loaned Trump over $1 billion in real estate loans.

....when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.

During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him...

But they had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.

“Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”

Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin.

The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer,

During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.

https://images.dailykos.com/images/559275/large/Screen_Shot_2018-06-29_at_13.07.09.png?1530274244

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/28/1776541/-Loans-of-over-1-Billion-to-Trump-by-SCOTUS-justice-Kennedy-s-son-but-nothing-to-see-here?detail=emaildkre

[ducks]

do you not wish you had assets to get a billion dollar loan?

[Trainwreck2100]

lel eat shit roe v wade

[boutons_deux]

With Trump Ready to Name Far-Right Justice, Poll Shows Nearly 70 Percent in US Want Women's Abortion Rights Protected

"President Trump has promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. That promise should set off alarm bells for anyone who cares about women—and the Constitution."

The Kaiser Family Foundation survey (https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/poll-finding/further-findings-from-kaisers-june-health-tracking-poll-womens-issues/) found that

67 percent of respondents want Roe untouched,

including 81 percent of Democrats and

73 percent of independent voters.

Skewing the overall result downward, of course, are the 53 percent of Republicans polled who do favor stripping women of their right to control their own bodies –

the key protection enshrined in the 1973 landmark case.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/29/trump-ready-name-far-right-justice-poll-shows-nearly-70-percent-us-want-womens

[koriwhat]

With Trump Ready to Name Far-Right Justice, Poll Shows Nearly 70 Percent in US Want Women's Abortion Rights Protected

"President Trump has promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. That promise should set off alarm bells for anyone who cares about women—and the Constitution."

The Kaiser Family Foundation survey (https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/poll-finding/further-findings-from-kaisers-june-health-tracking-poll-womens-issues/) found that

67 percent of respondents want Roe untouched,

including 81 percent of Democrats and

73 percent of independent voters.

Skewing the overall result downward, of course, are the 53 percent of Republicans polled who do favor stripping women of their right to control their own bodies –

the key protection enshrined in the 1973 landmark case.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/29/trump-ready-name-far-right-justice-poll-shows-nearly-70-percent-us-want-womens





whats the percentage of women getting abortions due to incest/rape/etc and not just from being a bunch of pof/tinder whores these days?

"stripping women of their right to control their own bodies" lmao! didn't control spreading them legs though.

[spurraider21]

whats the percentage of women getting abortions due to incest/rape/etc and not just from being a bunch of pof/tinder whores these days?

"stripping women of their right to control their own bodies" lmao! didn't control spreading them legs though.
ultimately irrelevant. you have a constitutional right to privacy. and there are other confidentiality issues with anything one would share with a medical professional, including the reason for an abortion.

[koriwhat]

ultimately irrelevant. you have a constitutional right to privacy. and there are other confidentiality issues with anything one would share with a medical professional, including the reason for an abortion.

let's be realistic and explore all variables of today's society for a minute... whores are everywhere these days masquerading as women with morals.

[spurraider21]

let's be realistic and explore all variables of today's society for a minute... whores are everywhere these days masquerading as women with morals.
and you are the expert on whore demographics, aren't you

either way, im sure it's not that hard to look up the reported figures if you really wanted to, keeping in mind that they are all selective/self reporting

[spurraider21]

people blame crime, poverty, welfare on lazy kids with poor parenting, and yet think it will be better for society if admittedly unread, unprepared, and financially deficient parents to be forced have a child and try to raise them, ultimately setting them up for failure and contributing to the problems listed at the beginning of this post

[koriwhat]

and you are the expert on whore demographics, aren't you

either way, im sure it's not that hard to look up the reported figures if you really wanted to, keeping in mind that they are all selective/self reporting

easy as opening up tinder/www.

[Chris]

"financially deficient parents to be forced have a child and try to raise them"

:lol

[SnakeBoy]

people blame crime, poverty, welfare on lazy kids with poor parenting, and yet think it will be better for society if admittedly unread, unprepared, and financially deficient parents to be forced have a child and try to raise them, ultimately setting them up for failure and contributing to the problems listed at the beginning of this post

so you're advocating that we kill the admittedly unread, unprepared, and financially deficient parents

[SnakeBoy]

or just sterilize them?

[spurraider21]

so you're advocating that we kill the admittedly unread, unprepared, and financially deficient parents
nope not at all

[leemajors]

Murder is illegal except if you decide to be irresponsible despite (unless you're fucking Boots or DerpJohn levels of retarded) simple cause and effect knowledge of unprotected sex. It's a god damn shame and the fact that abhorrent Leftist Nazis like Hillary co-sign murder because human lives that can't vote are worthless to her and hence the push for illegal immigrants having more rights than unborn, but living Muricans have because stretch marks and "leading a life" weighs heavier than casual murder in our shit society. This is one conservative value I can never compromise. It's disgusting to me that unwanted cats and dogs will outlive innocent lives and that these living, breathing human beings are discarded as garbage. It's vile, disgusting and it's murder and shows how laughable those that argue with "science" and/or human rights are and just how really disingenuous they are.

I was raised Catholic and felt the same way until my ex wife got pregnant 6 months after we had my daughter. She was adamant that she did not want to have another child then, and there was no way I could force her to. I was against it, and we talked about it, but it ended up being for the best. Two years later we were divorced. Until you've been in that situation I think it's impossible to understand what can go into making that decision, and how hard it is. Yes, there are people who treat it as birth control after the fact, but it is not a clear cut black and white issue that people try and make it out to be. The people that go through it have to deal with what they did.

[spurraider21]

or just sterilize them?
nope not that either

i'm all for education on contraception and easy access to contraceptives. and in the event things go wrong, not forcing them to parent a child that they're not ready for on a financial, emotional, or maturity level. i dont think society will benefit from having more kids brought up in those conditions

[spurraider21]

I was raised Catholic and felt the same way until my ex wife got pregnant 6 months after we had my daughter. She was adamant that she did not want to have another child then, and there was no way I could force her to. I was against it, and we talked about it, but it ended up being for the best. Two years later we were divorced. Until you've been in that situation I think it's impossible to understand what can go into making that decision, and how hard it is. Yes, there are people who treat it as birth control after the fact, but it is not a clear cut black and white issue that people try and make it out to be. The people that go through it have to deal with what they did.
yeah, i had been fairly conflicted on this issue when growing up. pretty sure i've said here that i was much more conservative in my teen years and have basically been slowly sliding left since.

man, i remember the first time my gf (then gf, now wife) had a scare when she was like 2 days late on her period. we always used protection... but freaked the fuck out anyway. trying to figure out how it could have happened, where we could have misused the condom... ultimately there was never hesitation and we both said if it came to it we'd get it taken care of. no way we'd have been in the position to raise a kid.

i was shorta shocked at myself at how quickly i came to that conclusion without any internal struggle. luckily it never came to that, as i got the "you're not a baby daddy" text the next day... but it would have been the right decision. i probably wouldn't have been able to go to law school, she'd have to have given up her med school hopes, etc. and the kid would have had a pretty shitty upbringing all things considered.

[SnakeBoy]

Wait, wait, wait...

Science says nothing actually.

Science says what is your definition of life? and further a human life for philosophy
In textbooks for students they attempt to define what they are going to use as a working definition of life.

Sure pro abortion/choice are going to bring up this point. And sure some are going to say it’s not a life because... but I would say that’s a minority. What they will say is YOU go to the women and tell her she can’t do that and then YOU adopt the child. Saying life begins at conception is really quite silly. You are using a scientific sequence of events to set a judgement about what life, and a human life, is. That’s treading on philosophical grounds. You really got to do some pontification and shaky logic.

Having said all this I totally respect the pro life movement and those that step to the plate (adopt)

Science teacher says science doesn't define what is or isn't life or what is or isn't human. It's all subjective according to science.

smh today's teachers

[spurraider21]

Science teacher says science doesn't define what is or isn't life or what is or isn't human. It's all subjective according to science.

smh today's teachers
yeah back in my day, scientists would more boldly proclaim stuff that they weren't sure about!

those were the days

[Pavlov]

nope not that either

i'm all for education on contraception and easy access to contraceptives. and in the event things go wrong, not forcing them to parent a child that they're not ready for on a financial, emotional, or maturity level. i dont think society will benefit from having more kids brought up in those conditionsIt would be a lot easier to be against abortions if right wingers weren't against contraception and sex education.

[SnakeBoy]

nope not that either

i'm all for education on contraception and easy access to contraceptives. and in the event things go wrong, not forcing them to parent a child that they're not ready for on a financial, emotional, or maturity level. i dont think society will benefit from having more kids brought up in those conditions

Why do you feel killing the children of unread, unprepared, and financially deficient parents while allowing them to continue to reproduce is a more efficient or more moral solution than killing those parents or just sterilizing them?

[spurraider21]

Why do you feel killing the children of unread, unprepared, and financially deficient parents while allowing them to continue to reproduce is a more efficient or more moral solution than killing those parents or just sterilizing them?
i dont think society would benefit from having couples killed because they weren't careful in the manner in which they had sex. i also dont think society would benefit from having unwilling parents being forced to have and raise kids when they are admittedly not ready.

i would also argue that reproduction is a very basic human right that probably shouldn't be infringed upon too much

[Pavlov]

lol StrawBoy

[SnakeBoy]

yeah back in my day, scientists would more boldly proclaim stuff that they weren't sure about!

those were the days

yeah they used to say this coffee mug I'm holding wasn't alive and wasn't a human. I guess now they're not sure. #progress

[spurraider21]

yeah they used to say this coffee mug I'm holding wasn't alive and wasn't a human. I guess now they're not sure. #progress
thats the most ridiculous argument i've seen today. and on a forum that includes Chris and spurtacular, that's honestly an impressive feat

[Trill Clinton]

I was raised Catholic and felt the same way until my ex wife got pregnant 6 months after we had my daughter. She was adamant that she did not want to have another child then, and there was no way I could force her to. I was against it, and we talked about it, but it ended up being for the best. Two years later we were divorced. Until you've been in that situation I think it's impossible to understand what can go into making that decision, and how hard it is. Yes, there are people who treat it as birth control after the fact, but it is not a clear cut black and white issue that people try and make it out to be. The people that go through it have to deal with what they did.


sorry to hear that. i agree with this post too.

[SnakeBoy]

thats the most ridiculous argument i've seen today. and on a forum that includes Chris and spurtacular, that's honestly an impressive feat

you're the one saying science isn't sure about what is or isn't life

[spurraider21]

you're the one saying science isn't sure about what is or isn't life
you are free to point me to published scientific papers identifying the point at which a human is considered to be alive

[Chris]

Scientific papers = Bible for 21

[spurraider21]

Scientific papers = Bible for 21
chris, master conflater

[ducks]

61,000,000 (million) babies aborted since Roe v Wade in the U.S.

[ducks]

Lol some of them might be old enough now that trump would not have won

[ducks]

President Donald Trump said Friday he has narrowed down his search for a seat on the Supreme Court to about five finalists, including two women, and will announce his pick on July 9.

Trump spoke about his plans for nominating a replacement for retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy aboard Air Force One en route to Bedminster, New Jersey.

A person familiar with the process said White House officials are focused primarily on five federal appeals court judges -- Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar -- all Republican appointees with conservative track record

[CosmicCowboy]

This should he hilarious. Please pick a woman. Cant wait for the confirmation hearings.

[CosmicCowboy]

Democrats attacking an accomplished woman.

[spurraider21]

Democrats attacking an accomplished woman.
dems had no problem attacking devos. though she doesn't really qualify as an accomplished woman.

[pgardn]

Science teacher says science doesn't define what is or isn't life or what is or isn't human. It's all subjective according to science.

smh today's teachers

You think biology teachers should just teach human biology or what? What is your viewing the following?

Science teachers MUST teach viruses, are they alive? Tell the board?
Science teachers must teach about bacteria and The dormant spores that form in critical stiuations, are they alive?
Some molecules can self replicate, is this life? Are these molecules alive?

You think this is some sort of game? It’s not. You must define what you talk about in science.

So the great and powerful Snakeboy has decided a human life begins at conception? What’s your reasoning? And please don’t answer the above, you are heading for a headache. I imagine most HS Science teachers in Texas do teach this as it’s some simplistic given.

It’s not.

You used a scientifically discovered stage in sexual reproduction YOURSELF to define a life and you prounounce that stage as, human life begins here.
That’s funny, and incredibly ignorant.

[boutons_deux]

Top Trump prospect for open Supreme Court seat claims presidents are above prosecution and investigations

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Brett-M.-Kavanaugh-800x430.jpg

A leading contender to be appointed to the Supreme Court is a highly partisan Republican who holds an extremist view of presidential power,

he’s argued that the president should not be distracted by civil lawsuits, criminal investigations or even questions from attorneys while in office.

despite that stance, Kavanaugh worked under Ken Starr as one of the attorneys investigating Bill Clinton.

he has more recently written a law review article (https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf) offering an extremist view of presidential power.

A president should not have to face “time-consuming and distracting” investigations or lawsuits because they “ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Kavanaugh is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion rights.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/top-trump-prospect-open-supreme-court-seat-claims-presidents-prosecution-investigations-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Goddamn, yet another extreme right wing ideologue is a fucking Catholic. Sounds like he think the US Pres should act like a Pope

[Chris]

pgardn grandstanding again, but no one knows what he's talking about :lol