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][twitter]https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1540339254315859971[/twitter][/quote]

His name is Guy, why trust a random person on the internet who recites information from a non-mainstream news outlet, that opens with "Liberal Yale Professor". It just seems off, unless that's what the Professor calls themself. Why else mention their political views, when[b] the Supreme Court is supposedly neutral and interpreters of the constitution[/b]. The case itself did away with the antiquated view of [i][b]women as livestock[/b][/i], reducing them to beings without a choice over their own bodies. Yet, when regarding mandated vaccines, [u]many conservatives don't hesitate to recite the same phrase, "My body, my choice."[/u] It simply is [i]entitlement[/i] to have power over women. How is it that people forgot that Brett Kavanaugh was caught having r-worded a child. Yes, a child, a minor, and it wasn't consensual, yet the news articles refrain from using the proper term of SA and instead choose the term "sex" quite often. As though, to make it seem less of a disturbing matter, bc it's just "sex". No, it isn't. That's the problem. If that child were to have gotten pregnant with his child, he would've paid for an abortion as fast as possible. As though to not "ruin" his reputation, because to people like them, it doesn't matter what happens to these children, as long as they aren't directly affected. That's why they rather allow states to uphold their own laws, so that they can find other ways (like Texas) to extort/and exploit the marginalized [b]instead of demanding legislation from congress.[/b] Congress' inefficiency is the most to blame, because[b] the Supreme Court's ruling has no effect unless enforced. [/b]They have no power to enforce it by themselves, [i]they must rely on Congress to do it[/i], and yet, they couldn't. [b]Dems and Republicans are both moderates[/b], yet this false belief of having a free market of ideas/political beliefs whilst being constrained to bipartisan systems is embarrassing. The United States is quite literally the Texas of the World, demonizing any political views different from theirs and infiltrating places to [i]"establish democracy"[/i] when the United States is quite the opposite itself. That's why they failed with the Vietnam War, it's this whole Savior Complex perpetuated by this false narrative of hope and freedom, that doesn't even allow people to make decisions on their own bodies. Forcibly sending men to fight a war, they had no say in. Who cares if there is disagreements between leaders? Why drag innocent civilians into the battlefield and fight other people's battles. Then they act like men didn't do this to themselves, like the founding "FATHERS" are men. They viewed women as lesser, and no equality won't suffice because nor do women want to fight other people's battles. It's ridiculous, and belittling. What they protest for, is equity. Fairness. If women aren't allowed to be drafted, why force men to? That's ofc a pacifists viewpoint, but you can put the pieces together in that oversimplified scenario. This ruling affects religious freedoms as well, leaving people to go to extremes like join [i]religions[/i] that would allow for abortion or their basic human rights despite laws against it, whether or not they understand it's practices. Even so, doctors have their own opinions as well, and to be straight with y'all, even if abortion is legal, it is so hard to enforce while doctor's insert their own opinions on women's bodies as well. Whether they get their tubes tied, or even get contraceptives biologically installed (surgically). "Just go to another doctor?" It isn't that easy. Especially if you don't have insurance, or an insurance that the provider will take. People shouldn't have to be lucky to be born into fortunate households, just to receive medical care. It's humiliating, and saddening. If it wasn't for charities like St. Jude, children would be dying all the time in the US, simply because their families can't afford the treatments. It's immoral, yet the line stops with children, but not full-grown adults. Why's that? It's already hard for Black women to give birth in many hospitals not knowing if their child will survive, because of malpractice and the rampant racism within the medical field, and now Canada has to come out and say that "we'll receive the people who can't get the proper healthcare in their own country",[b] it's giving refugees[/b]. [b]It's giving NOT land of the free.[/b] The fact that only now, that the majority of white women are dumping their boyfriends due to misogynoir, but when it came to racism, homophobia, transphobia, the line wasn't drawn. Even when abortions become illegal, it will be much easier for white people to travel across state lines than poc. That's the worst of it all, even when intersectionality hits, there's still a bit of privilege they have, and that's not a gift or special right, it's the avoidance of specific hardships. Sorry to rant, but this forum seems so, lack there-of. Articles from twitter? Really. It's just so, bleh.[/quote]

As soon as I saw that headline, I knew it would be Amar.  He’s a total attention whore that is always looking for a new “spin” on con law to feed his next books or article and keep him in the press.  He’s neither a liberal nor a conservative.  He’s a “hey this is a different way to look at it” guy.
— YLS grad who took  Con Law and Fed Courts from Amar[/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