The War in America

Drithius

Magic & Loss
Joined
November 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
Thought the title fitting, considering the other thread seeking problems elsewhere in the world. A topic to encompass the downward spiral of American division not covered in other threads.

In today's news, an American woman could die in Malta, having no legal access to an abortion. Which is nothing compared to the women who will die and otherwise be impoverished tomorrow with the overturning of Roe v Wade: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437

Come to America, where evangelicals run barter town.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
When I heard of the supreme court verdict, that New York isn't allowed to restrict wearing guns in public my immediate reaction was: This proves that the USA isn't a civilized country. It is as simple as that. It is inherent in the definition of civilization, that outside of war times people do not run around with weapons in their hands.

You could say that this belongs in the other thread about weapons control, but it is also an answer to your post:

The US isn't a civilized country. Period.

So we could define a policy to only allow civilized discussions in this forum and simply close both threats because the behavior of uncivilized countries isn't a topic for a civilized forum.

This might be considered unfair because helping uncivilized counties to find their way into civilization might be a heroic goal for a civilized forum - but is is worth the energy?

When I see the weapon fanatics and Trump supporters during such topics even in this forum I think: It is simply not worth it to discuss with them. It will never achieve anything.

So my suggestion is: Simply don't try such discussions, it is only frustrating.

Edit: And today's verdict of the supreme court with respect to abortion confirms all of the above.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
1,794
You always need discourse and compromise between [rational] perspectives. But this latest Court decision is founded in little beyond seeking to control others' lives. Typically, the same group of people who are for forcing unwanted pregnancies upon women will also vehemently vote against welfare protections. Yet another example of hypocrisy.

It's little more than a powerplay.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
So, now everone in the U.S. is soon likely to be allowed to war a gun without any license or nothing at all ? Racists will love it. I smell the next civil war coming.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,974
Location
Old Europe
Yeah, though the writing was on the wall the past few months, I honestly didn't think Roe would actually be over-turned. It's beyond disappointing.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
19,051
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
Our supreme court is waging ideological war, like everyone else. I see the politicization of the supreme court as one of our biggest failures.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
That was a good line.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
Theses type of threads are always amusing. :cool:

Anyway moving on and getting serious.

1. Roe v Wade being overturned isn't the end of world.
2. It just means abortion laws are decided by the State and not Federal level.
3. Guns will never disappear because of the second amendment.
4. Any law or executive order against that amendment will always be overruled.
5. I don't foresee the 2nd amendment getting changed or removed any time soon.
6. There are to many lobbyist that influence the government to ever enact changes.

And the ending point yep the country is fucked in so many ways.:(
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,431
Location
Spudlandia
The overturning of Roe V Wade is quite possibly the worst decision by supposedly intelligent human beings I think I have ever seen in my lifetime.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
Really I see it as revenge against the liberal aligned supreme court during Obama's six years as president. As democrats weaponized the court first and now it's a lost weapon.

Their coming for same sex marriage next according to one supreme judge. As they say one step forward, two steps back. Basically rolling back the progressive agenda.

Yep the future isn't very bright.:(
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,431
Location
Spudlandia
The trouble is, the Democrats are prepared to let thugs steal their lunch without someone paying a higher price than he anticipated.

After the shameless shenanigans around when a Justice can be appointed, damn right I'd have packed the court. Then I'd make them an offer that we cut the shit, and agree to step back from doing either thing again. If turns into silly tit for tat expansion of the court until it becomes a whole chamber of its own? So be it - I don't see that's any worse than what they've got now, and if the Supreme Court has to be effectively nullified by making it openly partisan for each administration, maybe that's just a reflection of how the originally intended system doesn't work well since the founders' warnings against party were ignored, and you ended up with a parliamentary-like situation in a system that wasn't designed for one.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
That's not a bad idea, Ripper, but that would require Democrats with balls. Don't see any of those around.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
The basis on which Roe vs Wade came from never had a foot to stand on. Now is the time to decide if it is a new state law vs federal law with a new premise that allows abortion for all. I think IUDs should be on the table more now too.

And if worse comes to worse you can just fly to Canada or another state to get the procedure done. The problem now is that you cant hide it anymore.

About the actual Roe:

Norma McCorvey
Norma McCorvey would later claim that, during the 1970s although some years after Roe, she had a nightmare concerning "little babies lying around with daggers in their hearts". This was the first of a series of recurring nightmares which kept her awake at night.[187] She became worried and wondered, "What really, had I done?"[188] and "Well, how do they kill a baby inside a mother's stomach anyway?" McCorvey later reflected:[189]

I couldn't get the thought out of my mind. I realize it sounds very naïve, especially for a woman who had already conceived and delivered three children. Though I had seen and experienced more than my share of the world, there were some things about which I still didn't have a clue—and this was one of them. Ironically enough, Jane Roe may have known less about abortion than anyone else.

During the years after Roe, although not immediately, McCorvey joined with and accompanied others in the abortion rights movement. During this time, McCorvey stated that she had publicly lied about being raped and apologized for making the false rape claim.[190][191] Norma McCorvey became part of the movement against abortion from 1995 until shortly before her death in 2017.[192] In 1998, she testified to Congress:

It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[193]


Judge Edith Jones
In 2002, along with Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) from Doe v. Bolton and Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, McCorvey appeared in a television advertisement intended to get the Bush administration to nominate members to the Supreme Court who would oppose abortion.[194]

As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[195] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development. However, Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot.[196][197] On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey's appeal ended.[198]

In an interview shortly before her death, McCorvey stated that she had taken an anti-abortion position because she had been paid to do so and that her campaign against abortion had been an act. She also stated that it did not matter to her if women wanted to have an abortion and they should be free to choose.[199][200] Rob Schenck, a Methodist pastor and activist who once had anti-abortion views stated that he and others helped entice McCorvey to claim she changed sides and also stated that what they had done with her was "highly unethical" and he had "profound regret" over the matter.[201]

Frank Pavone, a priest with whom McCorvey talked to after the interview, reflected after her death that "There was no indication whatsoever, at the end of her life" that she had given up her pro-life positions. Pavone stated that following the interview, McCorvey talked positively with him about a message she wanted him to convey at the next March for Life. The message concerned encouraging young people to oppose abortion.[202]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
368
Maybe, but this is also about civil rights in general. It's about minority rule. The court's reasoning, essentially, was it isn't in our founding documents. It's the originalist's argument, or the textualist's. They're really just slight variations on the same theme of bullshit. It's what lawyers do all day long; it's how they ply their trade: distorting language to their own ends, whatever those may be. It's a "school of thought" that simply gives permission for whatever kind of bullshit you care to come up with.

I just heard some lawyer last night say originalism only began in the 1970s or 1980s. I didn't know that. That makes sense. It was in response to our American swing to the left politically during the 1960s. The Summer of Love in 1969, by the way, was a global phenomenon, just like the one we're seeing today.

This is about minority rule in a country where 2/3 of the people want access to abortion. This is about civil rights in general. Thomas, who has the gall to call himself justice, has already drawn the next battleline, gay marriage and gay rights in general. They've already gutted voting rights, and I'm sure more is to come. Once autocrats take one of your civil rights, they always want another. It's a large part of their power over you.

This is about the right's ideological war, in which our supreme court has proved itself to be just another soldier.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
Gay rights is a completely different issue. I think marriage is really a religious construct, and should only apply to those who are religious. For everyone else a civil union with all the same rights as marriage should apply.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
368
I just told you why it's not an entirely separate issue. Try listening more.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
What needs to happen is term limits for every position of government. That means every congressman, senator, and so on. No more life long politicians in the same office.

At max you should be allowed two terms just like the president if re-elected.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,431
Location
Spudlandia
I just told you why it's not an entirely separate issue. Try listening more.

Well I didn't understand your argument. I understand the originalist versus textualist issue, but I don't understand how it applies to Roe vs Wade specifically. Roe vs Wade was founded on a fraudulent basis. At least now "Roe", Norma can rest in peace. She spent her whole life fighting abortion after how she was duped into that cause. I mean sure you can support abortion rights, but at least start from a good foundation. Roe vs Wade isn't a good foundation and an example of how corrupt the system is.

To be fair I don't even know the basis for abortion rights on a federal level. As to why the federal government get to decide how the medical segment of states function when the states fund the medical segment through their budget. All I know is that it doesn't affect me(no sisters and never going to get into a relationship) but I want all laws to have a good fundamental basis and Roe vs Wade wasn't it.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
368
To be fair, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the basis for Roe vs. Wade, well myself. Essentially, though, the court has tracked a path that the pursuit of happiness includes making decisions over one's own life, where it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Roe vs. Wade extended that right to women to choose what they do with their own bodies and their own health.

On a personal note, Overlt, I would never choose abortion for myself, nor would I counsel any woman I was with to do so. I love kids, and they're our only hope for the future. But I also love women, and I respect their right to choose their own path in this life, just as I expect to be allowed to follow mine.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
Back
Top Bottom