Reply to Roe v Wade struck down

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Roe v Wade struck down"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]How about Michelle Obama? Or a celebrity we'll just run themselves with confident people?[/quote]

Stop with the political dynasties already!!

Can’t you see that is why we are in this position right now? [/quote]
I generally assume that people suggesting HRC, Mrs Obama or any celebrity are trolling. I think HRC would do great, actually, but she’s not interested. She won in 2016 and instead we got the great treason weasel.[/quote]

HRC did not win in 2016. [/quote]
Eh. HRC won. [/quote]

Nope. Not by our country's long established process. If you dont like it, then work to get it changed. Otherwise, you're no better than Trump complaining that he really won reelection.[/quote]

Yes, we are still better ffs. Because we're not actually trying to prevent the orderly transition of power, and we're not encouraging violent insurrection. We're pointing out that the majority of voters wanted something different - VERY different - from what we got. [/quote]

You clearly haven't read all the posts in this thread and others [/quote]

88% of americans favor some form of Roe
88% of americans facor some form of gun control and red flag laws

The majority of americans favor democrats and liberal policies.

Facts matter.[/quote]

Isn't the beauty of local and state elections that votes are basically these polls where they take the consensus and make that policy? So what is the point of bringing up polls. Let the voting booths speak for themselves. This is more of a general comment because whenever I see polls being brought up in political debates I don't really get it lol.  [/quote]

Some rights are inherent to our Constitution. The current SC is now treating the Constitution like prescriptive legislation, when in fact it is a guiding document of ideals. It should NOT take legislation to have control of your health.

Your position is anti-liberty. You want state governments to take away your option for medical treatment you might need. According to you, a state could ban insulin or kidney transplants....right? And then the voters are required to wait until the next election to vote in representatives who will make kidney transplants legal again?

That's an insane and unconstitutional burden to place upon the voters. It's sheer chaos. 
[/quote]

I don't see how my position is anti liberty - I am just telling you how it is. I agree that the government should have zero say in much of our lives and medical treatments is 100% included. The issue is that part of the country thinks it is a medical treatment (of which you and I are a part), and part of the country thinks its killing babies. It's not really possible to settle the debate and determine once and for all when life starts, and therefore it will always be a debate and it won't be settled as to whether it is medical treatment or killing babies. That's just the reality of the situation, putting emotion aside. Call me anti liberty or whatever all you want, I don't know what good that does, I'm pro-choice, but this is the reality. The fact that you can't 100% determine once and for all whether it is a medical treatment or killing a baby is why putting it in the Supreme court's hands is a bit dicey (as RBG and others have mentioned throughout history), hence why this decision happened. If Americans want it by popular vote, we need to go to state legislatures and congress - enough bringing up polls because as I mentioned voting is literally polls but it actually counts...

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics