Re: Supreme Court Watch
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:28 pm
Twitter for the past 24 hours.. I just can't. Back under my shell I go.
We still talk about tennis. And much more.
https://www.talkabouttennis2.com/
That's not really why though. Sure they are ignoring precedence and will continue to when it suits them, but they will also use it when it suits them just the same.
Why would stem cell research be banned? It was banned by Bush II when they were harvested from embryonic tissue, but the modern process simply reverts regular cells back into stem-cells. There is no "conception" or embryos involved.
Because some have already targeted it as a next step alongside contraception and IVF. Not sure the actual current scientific process matters to the crazies at this point. Some have just said stem cell research and others say more specifically embryonic stem cell research. But I have long since stopped looking for sound logic in their thinking so I have no idea if their why makes sense, but I haven't seen their argument laid out, just that it's been mentioned as a next step.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:13 pm
Why would stem cell research be banned? It was banned by Bush II when they were harvested from embryonic tissue, but the modern process simply reverts regular cells back into stem-cells. There is no "conception" or embryos involved.
The rest of what you say: yes, fun times indeed. The USA becomes less and less appealing with great frequency.
They're not going to remove the right to contraception.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:33 amAll the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:37 am I have no religious or political affiliation. All of my ideas, perspectives, beliefs, values, etc. are entirely my own, and are not merely adopted from some group or other...
I believe that abortion should be allowed in situations like rape, incest, some cases of teenage pregnancy, etc...
But I don’t think that anyone should use abortion as a form of birth control.
There are enough efficient methods of birth control available that refusing to use one, and instead figuring that one can just get an abortion if they become pregnant, is irresponsible and wrong in my view.
In the end, I am pro-education and pro-choice - but the choice should be made before conception whenever possible, not after. That's where the education comes in.
Deuce wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:23 amThey're not going to remove the right to contraception.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:33 amAll the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:37 am I have no religious or political affiliation. All of my ideas, perspectives, beliefs, values, etc. are entirely my own, and are not merely adopted from some group or other...
I believe that abortion should be allowed in situations like rape, incest, some cases of teenage pregnancy, etc...
But I don’t think that anyone should use abortion as a form of birth control.
There are enough efficient methods of birth control available that refusing to use one, and instead figuring that one can just get an abortion if they become pregnant, is irresponsible and wrong in my view.
In the end, I am pro-education and pro-choice - but the choice should be made before conception whenever possible, not after. That's where the education comes in.
And, again, as long as contraception is available, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
It certainly is by some.mmmm8 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:23 pmDeuce wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:23 amThey're not going to remove the right to contraception.Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:33 am
All the education in the world won't matter when they take contraception away too, which they are now considering. This isn't about saving unborn lives, being educated or responsible, it's about repressing women. (LGBTQ's are on the menu too)
And, again, as long as contraception is available, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
It's not.
You are more informed than I am, so:JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:19 pm I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.
I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.
Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.
That, and truly codifying abortion rights would require a constitutional amendment to be able to prevent the Supreme Court from reversing it. Good Luck!JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:19 pm I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I know people are angry. But I'm seeing a ton of women, especially young women, who are seriously angry at Democrats for not codifying abortion between Roe passing and now. They're saying it online, they're saying it on the news in interviews, they're saying it on the signs they are holding up at rallies. They say it in a manner like it's a done deal that it would've passed and would've passed the filibuster and then overcome a veto.
I'm unclear if this is from anger and realization will come to them sometime soon or if they are truly under the impression there was a time when the Pro-Life lobby wasn't strong enough to defeat it. They keep saying there's been ample opportunity in the last 50 years to codify it and I'd like them to name the specific years that it would've passed the filibuster to get to a vote and the presidential veto. At no point in the 70s and the 80s was there anywhere near that kind of pro-choice support in Congress. Was there one year in the late 90s or early or late 2000s where it could've passed? I'm not saying it didn't exist, I'm saying I want a specific year. Because you tell me the late 90s and I call BS on the same time period of a Congress that passed DOMA. You tell me when ACA passed and I'm questioning that too. Is the argument that there were Republicans that would've voted to end the filibuster at that point? Because pro-life Democrats do exist and there was a key one during that time period that voted past the filibuster for ACA who was a dyed in the wool pro-lifer that I don't see them getting support from to get passed the filibuster. So, what years are we talking about that we're talking about here? I have yet to see any specificity to such claims.
Because to me these people saying all this sound naive and uninformed about pro-choice support in Congress over the last 50 years. It makes me think, for instance, that people are forgetting or don't know all of the famous pastors of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that had very large followings in-person and on television and the effect that had on the populace as a whole. The Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwells of the world. The religious charlatans were everywhere and they were preaching pro-life constantly.
And I say that it's a highly irresponsible choice.