Poll of the Day > woman have lost control of their own body, roe v wade is overturned

(+) Yeah! (+)

Bligh_with_no_T posted...

If he's acting like a baby shouldn't the supreme Court protect him

You're only a precious gift from God until you're born, then you're on your own.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/1/0/AAfSRzAADYaK.jpg

ZangsBeard posted...

And Wanded is suspended... again.

Honestly I thought making fun of school shootings would get him. Nah it was the racism.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Honestly I thought making fun of school shootings would get him. Nah it was the racism.

you expect people to care about school shootings? pff

ZangsBeard posted...

And Wanded is suspended... again.

Hell yeah brother

I mean, I said I would literally punch the guy in the face, but I think that's rational considering he'd have my mom dead.

UltimaterializerX posted...

I in no way support this ruling, but facts are important. Abortion is not illegal; it's just been made into a state decision. Which is still incredibly idiotic, just for the record.

I'm willing to bet most of the men involved in this don't know what the word "ectopic" means without looking it up.

Actually, the ruling isn't even about whether or not abortion is legal or illegal, it's about a right to privacy between a person and their health care provider without the government being able to intervene.

This actually has some seriously terrifying consequences beyond just abortion...

UltimaterializerX posted...

had to double check which board i was on for a second

"Abortion should be a matter for state's rights."

OK, we want to ban people from carrying guns in public.

"Now hold on a minute..."

UltimaterializerX posted...

I in no way support this ruling, but facts are important. Abortion is not illegal; it's just been made into a state decision. Which is still incredibly idiotic, just for the record. This is awful and choice should have been codified into law when Obama was president with a supermajority. The old video surfaced of the Pro Choice Act not being a legislative priority for him and I wanted to puke.

I'm willing to bet most of the men involved in this don't know what the word "ectopic" means without looking it up.

Obama'a priority was trying to pass three separate copyright infringement laws.

now trump is saying it was not a good idea to overturn this

despite it being one of the things he ran on

but the reason, is only because it "makes my party look bad"

yeah that's what did that

Wanded posted...

i did answer it, really invested in that one too, your truth czars nuked the topic and my account specifically BECAUSE that answer was so good and they didn't want such a massive blow to the pro abortion stance and liberalism. the options i gave adjl are open to you as well.

Then surely you'd have no problem posting it again? Oh wait, you would, because you didn't post shit.
All your arguments come down to "I totally owned you guys with facts and logic, but the far-left mods deleted my posts before you could read them."

Wanna see a Texas senator call for the reversal of racial segregation Supreme Court rulings?
https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1540689961040482306

Wanded posted...

lmao "the parties switched names"
you wanna tell me i've been talking to an unironic party switch myth believer all this time???

Look up "Nixon's Southern Strategy" you fucking clod

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

Gaawa_chan posted...

Wanna see a Texas senator call for the reversal of racial segregation Supreme Court rulings?
https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1540689961040482306

Actually, I think he meant that it took roughly 50 years for Brown vs. Board to overrule Plessy vs. Ferguson, so the mere fact that Roe vs. Wade has been around for 50 years doesn't say one way or the other whether we should keep it around.

that is very literally not what he is saying to the black man.

stop going "what he had actually meant to say was:" to try and justify the fact that these people are, have always been, and will continue to be, blatant racist fucks. if they actually meant to say something else, then that would have been the thing they said.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/5/4/AAfSRzAADYd-.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/7/1/AAZslrAADYeP.jpg

Any day now, Joe

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


What in the kentucky fried fuck is this.

Why do the people writing pregnancy laws know nothing about how pregnancy works?

Far-Queue posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/7/1/AAZslrAADYeP.jpg

Any day now, Joe

Wow Joe Biden not keeping his campaign promise? I'm shocked

Nothing will fundamentally change my ass

Far-Queue posted...

Any day now, Joe

Lemme know when he finds 60 senators willing to do that, or 50 who will override the filibuster.

As long as Manchin and Sinema stand in the way of reform, as they have done for years, this isn't going to happen and it's kind of stupid to blame Biden for it. You want him to do that? You Americans better turn out in your midterms and actually vote in some democrat senators who are willing to get shit done.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/8/2/AAQwHjAADYea.png

Gaawa_chan posted...

It's safer than pregnancy and birth/c-sections. You don't give a fuck about women being injured, you want to force women to risk their health and lives for fucking parasites.

gonna preface this by saying i 100% agree with you but i feel like it's kinda messed up to refer to the babies like this. it's not their fault they're in this situation, it just feels like demonizing an innocent.

or something. idk. just feels bad, man.

this topic is moving too fast, can we pls chill.

Let's police the language of women because it makes us uncomfortable yay

Nade Duck posted...

gonna preface this by saying i 100% agree with you but i feel like it's kinda messed up to refer to the babies like this. it's not their fault they're in this situation, it just feels like demonizing an innocent.

or something. idk. just feels bad, man.

this topic is moving too fast, can we pls chill.

parasite
/perst/
noun

1. 1.
2. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Considering its apt

why should the choice be with the woman and the doctor only? that right there is sexism

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/3/2/AAfSRzAADYfM.jpg

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'm often wary of the folks that take these opportunities to hyper-focus on only the Dems, especially since Republicans are the majority that are responsible for this...but yes, this is a fair point and it's extremely frustrating. There might be technical issues that prevented it? That's me offering some out for them, but I really don't know if there were any or not...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Because you can't fund raise and promise to codify it for votes if you actually codify it

ArvTheGreat posted...

why should the choice be with the woman and the doctor only? that right there is sexism

Has Arv ever been pregnant?

UltimaterializerX posted...

Yep, which is the #1 reason overturning it is dumb. This will not stop at Roe.

Considering Clarence Thomas in his opinion said they need to take away the right to same sex relationships, same sex marriages, and contraception... all of which where based on the fundamental right to privacy. Its not even a this might be next, he put it in his fucking opinion.

Its become clear to me that they used Roe v Wade as a jumping board to go after all the rest, because its a lot easier to say we must protect the unborn, vs we want to take rights away from homosexuals.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Because in the VERY FEW two year intervals where Dems actually controlled the white house and both houses of Congress, they still didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, and were not going to nuke the filibuster just to codify something that was already "settled law"?

ReturnOfFa posted...

I'm often wary of the folks that take these opportunities to hyper-focus on only the Dems, especially since Republicans are the majority that are responsible for this...but yes, this is a fair point and it's extremely frustrating. There might be technical issues that prevented it? That's me offering some out for them, but I really don't know if there were any or not...

Because in order for the Democrats to codify access to abortion they would need:
1) The presidency
2) A majority in the House
3) At least 60 votes in the Senate
4) None of the anti-abortion Democrats to break ranks and vote against it (and there have always been anti-abortion Democrats - even now, when pro-choice sentiment is the highest it's ever been in the US, there are still pro-life elected Democrat officials in congress who almost certainly would not vote to codify abortion protections into law).
5) A Supreme Court that wouldn't immediately find a reason to strike down the law as unconstitutional

They've never had all of those at the same time. Even in the Obama era, which is the only time in the last 40 years that they've had a supermajority in the senate, it is very unlikely they would have been able to muster the 60 votes necessary to overcome an almost certain Republican filibuster.

UltimaterializerX posted...

Yep, which is the #1 reason overturning it is dumb. This will not stop at Roe.

1. yes it's terrifying the other implications this is causing to come up again

2. kinda annoying though that we're bringing up all these other concerns, as if the regression of women's rights isn't enough to be terrified about

darkknight109 posted...

Because in order for the Democrats to codify access to abortion they would need:
1) The presidency
2) A majority in the House
3) At least 60 votes in the Senate
4) None of the anti-abortion Democrats to break ranks and vote against it (and there have always been anti-abortion Democrats - even now, when pro-choice sentiment is the highest it's ever been in the US, there are still pro-life elected Democrat officials in congress who almost certainly would not vote to codify abortion protections into law).
5) A Supreme Court that wouldn't immediately find a reason to strike down the law as unconstitutional

They've never had all of those at the same time. Even in the Obama era, which is the only time in the last 40 years that they've had a supermajority in the senate, it is very unlikely they would have been able to muster the 60 votes necessary to overcome an almost certain Republican filibuster.

Republicans spent decades slamming their heads into a wall to overturn Roe.

And you know what? It worked.

Dems should be putting in at least that much effort tbh.

OmegaM posted...

Actually, I think he meant that it took roughly 50 years for Brown vs. Board to overrule Plessy vs. Ferguson, so the mere fact that Roe vs. Wade has been around for 50 years doesn't say one way or the other whether we should keep it around.

I hope you are right.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/7/4/AAfSRzAADYha.jpg

https://www.reddit.com/r/auntienetwork/

Anyone who wants to help

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/9/6/AAAgaZAADYhw.jpg

wow i thought it was because you wanted to save babies

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6

but i thought it was about the babies!!!

The GOP platform is owning the libs

darkknight109 posted...

Because in order for the Democrats to codify access to abortion they would need:
1) The presidency
2) A majority in the House
3) At least 60 votes in the Senate
4) None of the anti-abortion Democrats to break ranks and vote against it (and there have always been anti-abortion Democrats - even now, when pro-choice sentiment is the highest it's ever been in the US, there are still pro-life elected Democrat officials in congress who almost certainly would not vote to codify abortion protections into law).
5) A Supreme Court that wouldn't immediately find a reason to strike down the law as unconstitutional

They've never had all of those at the same time. Even in the Obama era, which is the only time in the last 40 years that they've had a supermajority in the senate, it is very unlikely they would have been able to muster the 60 votes necessary to overcome an almost certain Republican filibuster.

Bligh_with_no_T posted...

Republicans spent decades slamming their heads into a wall to overturn Roe.

And you know what? It worked.

Dems should be putting in at least that much effort tbh.

appreciate both these responses.

Jen0125 posted...

Wow Joe Biden not keeping his campaign promise? I'm shocked

Nothing will fundamentally change my ass

Do any of them ever keep their campaign promises?

Nade Duck posted...

gonna preface this by saying i 100% agree with you but i feel like it's kinda messed up to refer to the babies like this. it's not their fault they're in this situation, it just feels like demonizing an innocent.

or something. idk. just feels bad, man.

this topic is moving too fast, can we pls chill.

Babies don't exist until they are born by every definition of the word.