Replies to post #421489 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[Zorax]

This as well as 95% of your tripe was completely debunked and proven lies. This is how you and your nazi party thinks. And your games of throwing guilt trips on whataboutisms is pathetic and moronic beyond words. Such as trying to predict if some random zygote was going to be president some day. You're trying to convince people a blob of disorganized cells has some sort of future plan baked in. You are insane.

So pray tell me here, if you live in a Town with only 1,000 Registered Voters and you were running against me in Town and the results come in and all Registered Voters voted either in person or by Mail In Absentee Ballots (10) or some folks are new to Town and wanted to Vote in this election (10) more here. And you received 501 Vote's and I received 750 Votes what would you do would you ask for a check or recount at all? Possible votes to count should be 1,010, seems we got 1,251 votes. Don't laugh this occurred in Wisconsin and in Michigan to a larger extent but it happened.

[DesertDrifter]

I will not use your kind of language here

I use English. You use illiterate malaprops like "you're" for "your in the first sentence. Communicating with uneducated dolts who think they are correct when all you offer is regurgitated talking points. Your recoil at a proper description of your party is pretty funny, for someone who goes on to claim that abortion is illegal because it was not in the Constitution. Go preach on a street corner somewhere, you can find someone more gullible than you if you really try hard.

[fuagf]

livefree_ordie Your responses are not only in the main untrue, but they also stand as stark evidence of just why links for such are required by such as you. I do appreciate the work you put into them, but they truly suck. They are mostly misguided and misinformation. Take your first bits (in your bold):

"'Some responses below to you're tirade about Republicans and their Party."

Your party is so fucked up that it even makes Darth Cheney look good. Liz is a conservative, but she is doing something that the rest of you fools can't even recognize.... which is doing the morally right thing.
I will not use your kind of language here it is unbecoming of any human to demean others by swearing in public.
Liz is simply out for her own self-interest the great smart folks from her own home State realizes this, that is called responsible voting in a Constitutional Republic. Even wanted Dem.'s in her State to cross over to vote for her in Wyoming can you say the word manipulative person?

Firstly, most here see swearing as appropriate where appropriate. See - Worried About Swearing Too Much? Science Says You Shouldn't Be
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168667301 . We see swearing in moderation as highly appropriate in the face of insulting bullshit. Also, your "Liz is simply out for her own self-interest..." , considering her stand looked from the beginning likely to cost her dearly, as it has, is clearly ridiculous.

Also - again, your bold ..

* You have no qualms about forcing any woman to remain pregnant and have a child, much less a 10 year old rape victim.
The 10 year old in question could have received proper emergency treatment in her home State but they made it a National Story about having to travel outside her State due to its abortion ban publicity stunt by Dem.'s. Needs to make the evening news is what Lib's do all the time true or not they put it out there. Could have been handled and should have privately.

You did not include a supporting link which is mandatory for you for such an assertion. Here are a few go toward debunking that response of yours:

Could 10-year-old rape victim have gotten abortion in Ohio? Experts say exceptions in law are vague
Abortion Ohio Health Care
PHOTO
By Jeff Cercone July 21, 2022
If Your Time is short
* Ohio’s abortion law outlaws the procedure once a “fetal heartbeat” is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
* The law provides exceptions, allowing the procedure to prevent the death of the mother or to “prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
* Experts say the law’s language is too vague to be certain that it would have applied to a 10-year-old rape victim.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jul/21/could-10-year-old-rape-victim-have-gotten-abortion/

You called it a national stunt and stated the libs do it all the time. With no supportive link. You then stated unequivocally the 10 year old could have had the abortion in Ohio, without any supportive link. And in fact experts say the language of the law is to vague to know whether or not what you said is true. See also:

Posted this on a righty board. I'll leave my comments in
Jim Jordan Quietly Deletes Tweet Calling 10-Year-Old’s Abortion a ‘Lie’
TWITTER FINGERS
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169394351

Good journalism - A one-source story about a 10-year-old and an abortion goes viral
[...]
That was a benign headline. But it was the anecdotal beginning that caught the attention of other news organizations. The article said that three days after the June 24 court ruling, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, Caitlan Bernard .. https://drcaitlinbernard.wordpress.com/ , who performs abortions, received a call from “a child abuse doctor” in Ohio who had a 10-year-old patient who was six weeks and three days pregnant. Unable to obtain an abortion in Ohio, “the girl soon was on her way to Indiana to Bernard’s care,” the Star reported.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169384889

One more of your bold responses:

* You're happy to see women's rights taken away, and would condemn young men to 18 years of child support for a one night stand.
The Constitution never covered abortion as a right for anyone to be entitled to it is not there. Life is a part of the Constitution though in case you missed it. Women like men need to be more responsible as human beings before they attempt to pro-create another human being.

The fact the right to abortion is not in itself in the constitution itself does not disqualify it as a constitutional right as you say it does. A clump of cells is not stated to be life in the constitution. As for male v female responsibility your misogynist-tainted putting the women first on that score flies in the face of facts about unwanted pregnancies. See also:

8 legal reasons to dislike Justice Alito's draft opinion on abortion
[...]
The U.S. Constitution protects fundamental rights, both those that are specifically listed, like the right to speech in the First Amendment, and those that are not specifically listed .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment , including privacy rights such as the right to marry .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-102P.ZO .. and the right to autonomy over your own body .. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479 . Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, first held that abortion was among those rights, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 upheld that right. Both have shortcomings, but they are not so flawed that they should be struck down.
P - Yet that is what Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion would do. He declares that Roe and Casey were egregiously wrong and overrules them. Such a decision would allow states to outlaw abortion, which most red states are poised .. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states-ban-abortion-post-roe-america-rcna27081 .. to do. His opinion is not final, and the official decision is expected to be handed down only this summer. But it is worth conducting a close reading of his draft .. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000 , obtained by Politico, and examining the key quotes that reveal some of the many problems with his legal analysis.
1. The opinion claims that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.
[...]
2. The opinion relies on history and tradition alone to determine our rights.
[...]
3. The opinion reaffirms that pregnancy discrimination is not sex discrimination.
[...]
4. The court casually dismisses the equal protection clause.
“[W]e briefly address one additional constitutional provision that some … have now offered as yet another home for the abortion right: The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.” Although it is obvious to millions of women, Alito rejected out of hand the idea that abortion rights have much to do with equality. Yet as Planned Parenthood v. Casey recognized, without the right to control their reproduction, women cannot participate as equals in the social, economic and political life of the country. Alito devotes only a brief paragraph to this crucial aspect of why the right to abortion should be constitutionally guaranteed, and his main argument for dismissing it is that Geduldig and its progeny preclude it — despite the clearly flawed reasoning of Geduldig.
5. The opinion claims there is nothing wrong with letting legislatures determine abortion access.
[...]
6. The opinion puts many other rights at risk.
[...]
7. The opinion violates the principle of separation of church and state.
“There is ample evidence that the passage of [anti-abortion] laws was … spurred by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being.” But the view that an embryo or a fetus is a human being and that abortion is murder is ultimately a religious view, and not a universal one at that. Rather, it is the deeply held belief of a vocal and powerful subset of Christians; in Reform Judaism .. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ncjw.org/news/the-jewish-case-for-abortion-rights/__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!vLmHkfINt_lSrzfpcH3SoiPjzSzga_ux-QZGr5xDLPMFSJo_BFBV8u-2LRtQYhIx5qvEOmRjpJxWhVHWFEFMusyz$ , for instance, an abortion may be religiously mandated.
8. The opinion engages in shameless hypocrisy.
“In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to ‘liberty,’ we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy.” Yet that is exactly what Alito’s opinion does: It overrules decades-old precedent to impose conservative justices’ anti-abortion views because they finally have the votes to do so.
Related:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169244677

One more

Constitutional Protection for the Right to Abortion: From Roe to Casey to Whole Woman’s Health

In its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to abortion is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Since Roe the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the Constitution’s protection for this essential liberty, which guarantees each individual the right to make personal decisions about family and childbearing. Accordingly, the Court has made clear that it cannot dismiss “the certain cost of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 856 (1992). Over the decades since the Court first held that the Constitution encompasses protection for the right to abortion, including its most recent decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), as revised (June 27, 2016), it has also recognized that without access to abortion, the right is meaningless.

Roe built on earlier cases in which the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy protected an individual’s rights to reproductive autonomy. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court struck down a ban on the use or sale of contraceptives to married couples because it violated the constitutional right to privacy. In another case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Court extended this fundamental right to contraception to unmarried people. Eisenstadt elaborated on the right to privacy as “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id. at 488.
More - https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/factsheets/Constitutional-Protection-for-the-Right-to-Abortion-Fact-Sheet2.pdf