This SCOTUS leak has changed my mind.

Dendrobates wrote:I'm so glad I got my fallopian tubes removed.

Glad for you, however, will that be legal under the new laws ... not asking, just wondering.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Dendrobates wrote:I'm so glad I got my fallopian tubes removed.

Glad for you, however, will that be legal under the new laws ... not asking, just wondering.

I wonder about that too.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Dendrobates wrote:I'm so glad I got my fallopian tubes removed.

Glad for you, however, will that be legal under the new laws ... not asking, just wondering.

Exactly. More government over reach with new laws.
Now I know why I love you Trapper! Welcome to the dark-free side.

NumbersDude wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

Jesus dude. STFU

Not heeeeereeeee. People are engaging in discussion and this is what you have to add.

NumbersDude wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

Jesus dude. STFU

Not heeeeereeeee. People are engaging in discussion and this is what you have to add.

You don't have any interest in a discussion but rather attention. Which you obviously desperately need. And I'm a dumb ass for giving it to you.

duffy munn wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

Not heeeeereeeee. People are engaging in discussion and this is what you have to add.

NumbersDude wrote:

Not heeeeereeeee. People are engaging in discussion and this is what you have to add.

You don't have any interest in a discussion but rather attention. Which you obviously desperately need. And I'm a dumb ass for giving it to you.

As usual you add nothing. Consider this a pitty post.
And you are a grandfather? Yikes.

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Glad for you, however, will that be legal under the new laws ... not asking, just wondering.

Exactly. More government over reach with new laws.
Now I know why I love you Trapper! Welcome to the dark-free side.

There are going to be laws about abortion regardless of what they say, they may say it is legal, they may not, there will still be laws. If it is legal the laws are protecting the freedom of persons, if it is not, it is protecting the freedom of little bags of cells. Still a tradeoff regarding the freedom of interested parties.

hat reducing abortion might equate to more children in the US available to adopt. Thats me guessing on why she has a certain stance on an issue like abortion.
Instead of being angry at a persons decisions, I try to understand why and what factors lead to someones decisions.
You might not like it, or not agree with it, but try to understand why people do things. Get to know them a little before passing judgement on them. Or not. Its your choice.

you don't need to understand where their stance is coming from or rooted in to know that it is unamerican trash.  Her having adopted children is meaningless when she's actively trying to destroy settled law that she personally disagrees with, law that grants choice for woman to choose how to handle their own situations.  You are basically asking everyone here to understand her point of view but it is precisely her that is discounting the majority of AMERICAN point of views on the subject just because she is personally against it. she is wholly unamerican and it is a travesty that she was placed on a life appointment by the people you have championed for years. 100% unamerican point of view for 100% unamerican individuals.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

hat reducing abortion might equate to more children in the US available to adopt. Thats me guessing on why she has a certain stance on an issue like abortion.
Instead of being angry at a persons decisions, I try to understand why and what factors lead to someones decisions.
You might not like it, or not agree with it, but try to understand why people do things. Get to know them a little before passing judgement on them. Or not. Its your choice.

you don't need to understand where their stance is coming from or rooted in to know that it is unamerican trash.  Her having adopted children is meaningless when she's actively trying to destroy settled law that she personally disagrees with, law that grants choice for woman to choose how to handle their own situations.  You are basically asking everyone here to understand her point of view but it is precisely her that is discounting the majority of AMERICAN point of views on the subject just because she is personally against it. she is wholly unamerican and it is a travesty that she was placed on a life appointment by the people you have championed for years. 100% unamerican point of view for 100% unamerican individuals.

Thats your opinion. Thats ok too. Go and vote for abortion rights in your home state.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

hat reducing abortion might equate to more children in the US available to adopt. Thats me guessing on why she has a certain stance on an issue like abortion.
Instead of being angry at a persons decisions, I try to understand why and what factors lead to someones decisions.
You might not like it, or not agree with it, but try to understand why people do things. Get to know them a little before passing judgement on them. Or not. Its your choice.

you don't need to understand where their stance is coming from or rooted in to know that it is unamerican trash.  Her having adopted children is meaningless when she's actively trying to destroy settled law that she personally disagrees with, law that grants choice for woman to choose how to handle their own situations.  You are basically asking everyone here to understand her point of view but it is precisely her that is discounting the majority of AMERICAN point of views on the subject just because she is personally against it. she is wholly unamerican and it is a travesty that she was placed on a life appointment by the people you have championed for years. 100% unamerican point of view for 100% unamerican individuals.

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Glad for you, however, will that be legal under the new laws ... not asking, just wondering.

Exactly. More government over reach with new laws.
Now I know why I love you Trapper! Welcome to the dark-free side.

I don't know how to tell you this, but as long as you believe in the concept of the state and modern capitalism, you are a firm supporter of authority. Please stop patting yourself on the back until you support the emancipation of humans from illegitimate authority.

g adopted children is meaningless when she's actively trying to destroy settled law that she personally disagrees with, law that grants choice for woman to choose how to handle their own situations.  You are basically asking everyone here to understand her point of view but it is precisely her that is discounting the majority of AMERICAN point of views on the subject just because she is personally against it. she is wholly unamerican and it is a travesty that she was placed on a life appointment by the people you have championed for years. 100% unamerican point of view for 100% unamerican individuals.

NumbersDude wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:



you don't need to understand where their stance is coming from or rooted in to know that it is unamerican trash.  Her having adopted children is meaningless when she's actively trying to destroy settled law that she personally disagrees with, law that grants choice for woman to choose how to handle their own situations.  You are basically asking everyone here to understand her point of view but it is precisely her that is discounting the majority of AMERICAN point of views on the subject just because she is personally against it.  she is wholly unamerican and it is a travesty that she was placed on a life appointment by the people you have championed for years.  100% unamerican point of view for 100% unamerican individuals.

Thats your opinion. Thats ok too. Go and vote for abortion rights in your home state.

It's not MY opinion that she is unamerican trash, that is a fact.  America is built on the foundation of choice and equality, over the course of history we have progressed towards more equal, fairness, more choice, where it is merited to have it.  Her POV restricts choice and equality of one particular group of people, therefore she is against american ideals, i.e. unamerican.  Not an opinion, fact.

NumbersDude wrote:

DWags wrote:Why are Republicans on this board against recreational sex among consenting adults?

I’m legitimately curious. Don’t say you aren’t. We really want to know.

Because they hate freedom and want to force their values and their sense of morality upon you.

That can be said for all extreme political zealots

Or maybe it’s this reason.

[tw]1523399475166810113?s=21&t=caHYQoHOzDVIEKbT7nT31A[/tw]

[tw]1523141006509502470?s=21&t=cwPv3VVzGVTdNhXiTHLYXw[/tw]

DWags wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

Because they hate freedom and want to force their values and their sense of morality upon you.

That can be said for all extreme political zealots

Or maybe it’s this reason.

[tw]1523399475166810113?s=21&t=caHYQoHOzDVIEKbT7nT31A[/tw]

Fuck...in ten years will I look that old?

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

g adopted children is meaningless when she's actively trying to destroy settled law that she personally disagrees with, law that grants choice for woman to choose how to handle their own situations.  You are basically asking everyone here to understand her point of view but it is precisely her that is discounting the majority of AMERICAN point of views on the subject just because she is personally against it. she is wholly unamerican and it is a travesty that she was placed on a life appointment by the people you have championed for years. 100% unamerican point of view for 100% unamerican individuals.

NumbersDude wrote:

Thats your opinion. Thats ok too. Go and vote for abortion rights in your home state.

It's not MY opinion that she is unamerican trash, that is a fact.  America is built on the foundation of choice and equality, over the course of history we have progressed towards more equal, fairness, more choice, where it is merited to have it.  Her POV restricts choice and equality of one particular group of people, therefore she is against american ideals, i.e. unamerican.  Not an opinion, fact.

What is your definition of an American

Motown Spartan wrote:

DWags wrote:

Or maybe it’s this reason.

[tw]1523399475166810113?s=21&t=caHYQoHOzDVIEKbT7nT31A[/tw]

Fuck...in ten years will I look that old?

10?

DWags wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

Fuck...in ten years will I look that old?

10?

I look 20 years younger than that now but am only 10 years younger.

Motown Spartan wrote:

DWags wrote:

10?

I look 20 years younger than that now but am only 10 years younger.

But no way you’re as cool as that guy.

DWags wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

I look 20 years younger than that now but am only 10 years younger.

But no way you’re as cool as that guy.

Not with that swaggy shirt and mustache.

NumbersDude wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:


It's not MY opinion that she is unamerican trash, that is a fact.  America is built on the foundation of choice and equality, over the course of history we have progressed towards more equal, fairness, more choice, where it is merited to have it.  Her POV restricts choice and equality of one particular group of people, therefore she is against american ideals, i.e. unamerican.  Not an opinion, fact.

What is your definition of an American

One who believes in the founding principles of the United States, assuming you all really mean United Statesian.

The Rule of Law is by far the most important and fundamental founding principle, for without that nothing else can be sure.

The proposed abortion ruling craps all over the Rule of Law.

Trapper Gus wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

What is your definition of an American

One who believes in the founding principles of the United States, assuming you all really mean United Statesian.

The Rule of Law is by far the most important and fundamental founding principle, for without that nothing else can be sure.

The proposed abortion ruling craps all over the Rule of Law.

Many see it as just the abortion issue. But I see it as a whole, the government has no place forcing people to do anything with their bodies period.
If someone wants an abortion its their body. Same with vaccines.
I can have the same debate with a conservative that is anti abortion. But there is only 1 true conservative here. RQA.
Most people that identify themselves as republican or democrat typically only follow party lines, the posters here are very liberal.
Trapper you and Cosmo are more moderate. Breeo Man is pretty centrist.
I am a polite, understanding and accepting, diversity loving, anarchist according to some here.

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

One who believes in the founding principles of the United States, assuming you all really mean United Statesian.

The Rule of Law is by far the most important and fundamental founding principle, for without that nothing else can be sure.

The proposed abortion ruling craps all over the Rule of Law.

Many see it as just the abortion issue. But I see it as a whole, the government has no place forcing people to do anything with their bodies period.
If someone wants an abortion its their body. Same with vaccines.
I can have the same debate with a conservative that is anti abortion. But there is only 1 true conservative here. RQA.
Most people that identify themselves as republican or democrat typically only follow party lines, the posters here are very liberal.
Trapper you and Cosmo are more moderate. Breeo Man is pretty centrist.
I am a polite, understanding and accepting, diversity loving, anarchist according to some here.

As I've stated previously, I see this ruling as a state's rights thing. Will this set precedent for states to decide on abortions, gay rights, marijuana, gun rights, vaccines, or practically any other topical or controversial topic you can think of these days?

I'm not a Big Government kind of guy, but the fifty states of randomness doesn't sound appealing, either.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

Many see it as just the abortion issue. But I see it as a whole, the government has no place forcing people to do anything with their bodies period.
If someone wants an abortion its their body. Same with vaccines.
I can have the same debate with a conservative that is anti abortion. But there is only 1 true conservative here. RQA.
Most people that identify themselves as republican or democrat typically only follow party lines, the posters here are very liberal.
Trapper you and Cosmo are more moderate. Breeo Man is pretty centrist.
I am a polite, understanding and accepting, diversity loving, anarchist according to some here.

As I've stated previously, I see this ruling as a state's rights thing. Will this set precedent for states to decide on abortions, gay rights, marijuana, gun rights, vaccines, or practically any other topical or controversial topic you can think of these days?

I'm not a Big Government kind of guy, but the fifty states of randomness doesn't sound appealing, either.

Are you aware of the "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution? State Rights really have a very limited application, as the Federal Law is always supreme if there is a conflict. Federal laws are only constrained by the Constitution.

DWags wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

Because they hate freedom and want to force their values and their sense of morality upon you.

That can be said for all extreme political zealots

Or maybe it’s this reason.

[tw]1523399475166810113?s=21&t=caHYQoHOzDVIEKbT7nT31A[/tw]

Jesus fucking christ

duffy munn wrote:

DWags wrote:

Or maybe it’s this reason.

[tw]1523399475166810113?s=21&t=caHYQoHOzDVIEKbT7nT31A[/tw]

Jesus fucking christ

I don’t think that’s Jesus, Duffy. I think it is somebody from a 247 tailgate extravaganza. Or GreenWay.

I'm not going to go and argue with anyone here as others have beautifully said what I think.

Just one more thought/situation in this...
3 weeks after I had my first daughter, we found out some medical issues with me. Which my neurosurgeon told me and I quote "I do not recommend you get pregnant again." As it would make my situation worse, and therefore kill me.

Despite birth control again, I got pregnant. I really debated on what to do. I was not wanting to expand the family, and I certainly didn't want to die. I consulted with numerous physicians on statistics and recommendations and decided on the risk. I felt my medical team was on my side and looking out for me constantly throughout my pregnancy (even throughout covid).
My second pregnancy did make my condition worse. Brain surgery is inevitable, but it's monitored. I had the choice, and I needed it. If I didn't have a stable household, good insurance, invovled medical staff, amazing husband, and supportive family, etc. What would I do?
That is privilege. I know exactly what my choice would have been without that. And I used and had the medical resources to prevent it. Unlike many others, I am lucky. It's not fair to others.

Dendrobates wrote:I'm not going to go and argue with anyone here as others have beautifully said what I think.

Just one more thought/situation in this...
3 weeks after I had my first daughter, we found out some medical issues with me. Which my neurosurgeon told me and I quote "I do not recommend you get pregnant again." As it would make my situation worse, and therefore kill me.

Despite birth control again, I got pregnant. I really debated on what to do. I was not wanting to expand the family, and I certainly didn't want to die. I consulted with numerous physicians on statistics and recommendations and decided on the risk. I felt my medical team was on my side and looking out for me constantly throughout my pregnancy (even throughout covid).
My second pregnancy did make my condition worse. Brain surgery is inevitable, but it's monitored. I had the choice, and I needed it. If I didn't have a stable household, good insurance, invovled medical staff, amazing husband, and supportive family, etc. What would I do?
That is privilege. I know exactly what my choice would have been without that. And I used and had the medical resources to prevent it. Unlike many others, I am lucky. It's not fair to others.

Thanks for sharing. Happy mothers day.

Dendrobates wrote:I'm not going to go and argue with anyone here as others have beautifully said what I think.

Just one more thought/situation in this...
3 weeks after I had my first daughter, we found out some medical issues with me. Which my neurosurgeon told me and I quote "I do not recommend you get pregnant again." As it would make my situation worse, and therefore kill me.

Despite birth control again, I got pregnant. I really debated on what to do. I was not wanting to expand the family, and I certainly didn't want to die. I consulted with numerous physicians on statistics and recommendations and decided on the risk. I felt my medical team was on my side and looking out for me constantly throughout my pregnancy (even throughout covid).
My second pregnancy did make my condition worse. Brain surgery is inevitable, but it's monitored. I had the choice, and I needed it. If I didn't have a stable household, good insurance, invovled medical staff, amazing husband, and supportive family, etc. What would I do?
That is privilege. I know exactly what my choice would have been without that. And I used and had the medical resources to prevent it. Unlike many others, I am lucky. It's not fair to others.

First, happy Mother’s Day

Second, you’re a rare bird who has hers but is grateful for it and understanding of those that aren’t in your position. Abortions won’t stop, safe ones will and the less fortunate will once again pay for it.

At least fucking Scalia is still dead.

Cameron wrote:At least fucking Scalia is still dead.

With 5 "Scalias" on the court now that is no comfort at all.

AP wrote:National polls show that most Americans support abortion access. A Public Religion Research Institute survey from March found that a majority of religious groups believe it should be legal in most cases — with the exception of white evangelical Protestants, 69% of whom said the procedure should be outlawed in most or all cases.

More than four in ten Americans (44%) identify as white Christian, including white evangelical Protestants (14%), white mainline (non-evangelical) Protestants (16%), and white Catholics (12%), as well as small percentages who identify as Latter-day Saint (Mormon), Jehovah’s Witness, and Orthodox Christian.

69% of 14% is 9.7% - this law is to make 9.7% of the country happy.  The Radical 5 on the court have their heads up their asses with the belief that outlawing abortion is a burning issue.

This is a New York City fire fighter. “You have no choice, YOUR BODY IS MINE”

You Guys that are for Roe being overturned, you really don’t think there are a ton of police and firefighters with this attitude? These are paramilitary people saying this, we have Supreme Court justices asking for a domestic supply of babies and we have people turning their backs on this. Either because they agree, because they are white males because they are naïve or because they are stupid. Wake up.

[tw]1523317509994156035?s=21&t=UWfutqMtZWnBy-wq_VMM_A[/tw]

DWags wrote:This is a New York City fire fighter. “You have no choice, YOUR BODY IS MINE”

You Guys that are for Roe being overturned, you really don’t think there are a ton of police and firefighters with this attitude? These are paramilitary people saying this, we have Supreme Court justices asking for a domestic supply of babies and we have people turning their backs on this. Either because they agree, because they are white males because they are naïve or because they are stupid. Wake up.

[tw]1523317509994156035?s=21&t=UWfutqMtZWnBy-wq_VMM_A[/tw]

That is chilling.

DWags wrote:This is a New York City fire fighter. “You have no choice, YOUR BODY IS MINE”

You Guys that are for Roe being overturned, you really don’t think there are a ton of police and firefighters with this attitude? These are paramilitary people saying this, we have Supreme Court justices asking for a domestic supply of babies and we have people turning their backs on this. Either because they agree, because they are white males because they are naïve or because they are stupid. Wake up.

[tw]1523317509994156035?s=21&t=UWfutqMtZWnBy-wq_VMM_A[/tw]

Nothing fucked up about this

Trapper Gus wrote: If it is legal the laws are protecting the freedom of persons, if it is not, it is protecting the freedom of little bags of cells.

Of course the question leftists never answer is when that "little bag of cells" becomes a person such that it is deserving of being protected.

DWags wrote:This is a New York City fire fighter. “You have no choice, YOUR BODY IS MINE”

You Guys that are for Roe being overturned, you really don’t think there are a ton of police and firefighters with this attitude? These are paramilitary people saying this, we have Supreme Court justices asking for a domestic supply of babies and we have people turning their backs on this. Either because they agree, because they are white males because they are naïve or because they are stupid. Wake up.

[tw]1523317509994156035?s=21&t=UWfutqMtZWnBy-wq_VMM_A[/tw]

Fuck the police state. Now you see why the 2A is important?

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote: If it is legal the laws are protecting the freedom of persons, if it is not, it is protecting the freedom of little bags of cells.

Of course the question leftists never answer is when that "little bag of cells" becomes a person such that it is deserving of being protected.

Gaslighting again RQA, and doing a piss poor job at it.

Viability is the current law, which was decided by a Conservative Court. Most people agree with this.

There were arguments that "quickening" was a person by the church, but the church said that a person is not a person until it is breathing.

Heartbeat laws are pure stupidity, as there is no heart when "heart activity" is seen.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

As I've stated previously, I see this ruling as a state's rights thing. Will this set precedent for states to decide on abortions, gay rights, marijuana, gun rights, vaccines, or practically any other topical or controversial topic you can think of these days?

I'm not a Big Government kind of guy, but the fifty states of randomness doesn't sound appealing, either.

Are you aware of the "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution? State Rights really have a very limited application, as the Federal Law is always supreme if there is a conflict. Federal laws are only constrained by the Constitution.

Sure, but where there isn't a 100% air tight ruling at the federal level, this could encourage groups to go after other pet projects.

I mean, 5-10 years ago most people would have told you abortion was pretty well resolved and safe. You may or may not like it, but Roe v. Wade was the standard. Now look at where we are. And as others have pointed out here, this is going to spill over into contraceptives and possibly even elective sterilizations.

I don't know. Just makes me uneasy. It's like when you're sitting on your back deck, enjoying the evening, having a nice beverage, and you feel that cold wind of a thunderstorm, and all the little hairs on the back of your neck stand up. That's the feeling I get from this (possible) ruling. This is leading to much bigger storms.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Are you aware of the "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution? State Rights really have a very limited application, as the Federal Law is always supreme if there is a conflict. Federal laws are only constrained by the Constitution.

Sure, but where there isn't a 100% air tight ruling at the federal level, this could encourage groups to go after other pet projects.

I mean, 5-10 years ago most people would have told you abortion was pretty well resolved and safe. You may or may not like it, but Roe v. Wade was the standard. Now look at where we are. And as others have pointed out here, this is going to spill over into contraceptives and possibly even elective sterilizations.

I don't know. Just makes me uneasy. It's like when you're sitting on your back deck, enjoying the evening, having a nice beverage, and you feel that cold wind of a thunderstorm, and all the little hairs on the back of your neck stand up. That's the feeling I get from this (possible) ruling. This is leading to much bigger storms.

I have that same feeling. I felt that when Trump was elected too.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

Of course the question leftists never answer is when that "little bag of cells" becomes a person such that it is deserving of being protected.

Gaslighting again RQA, and doing a piss poor job at it.

Viability is the current law, which was decided by a Conservative Court. Most people agree with this.

There were arguments that "quickening" was a person by the church, but the church said that a person is not a person until it is breathing.

Heartbeat laws are pure stupidity, as there is no heart when "heart activity" is seen.

blah....blah....blah....

Trapper chooses not to answer my question. Did you apply for Jenn's job? You have the skill set for it.

NumbersDude wrote:

DWags wrote:This is a New York City fire fighter. “You have no choice, YOUR BODY IS MINE”

You Guys that are for Roe being overturned, you really don’t think there are a ton of police and firefighters with this attitude? These are paramilitary people saying this, we have Supreme Court justices asking for a domestic supply of babies and we have people turning their backs on this. Either because they agree, because they are white males because they are naïve or because they are stupid. Wake up.

[tw]1523317509994156035?s=21&t=UWfutqMtZWnBy-wq_VMM_A[/tw]

Fuck the police state. Now you see why the 2A is important?

Now you see why you're on the wrong side of history with wanting Roe overturned. Wake up.