Abortion

[LittleFuzzy]

I can't think of any other issue where vigilantism is acceptable,

It's not acceptable here either. This isn't vigilantism. It's courts, via either jury or judge, rendering a verdict. The distinction is important. The fact that the courts are so necessarily entwined in the matter is key to why the law should be struck down for still involving state action against abortion.

just because the legislature says so, and considers that "due process".

It is due process. A taking from a court-rendered verdict is practically the definition of proper and valid due process.

Substitute state regulations for "abortion" with similar state regulations for "guns" and you know what I mean.

Stop deliberately confusing the issues so you can express moral outrage and engage in virtue-signalling.

Sounds like SCOTUS is undermining their own validity and 'supremacy' in the legal field, and/or exposing their political leanings. But that's probably what Texas had in mind in the first place. Yay for lawyers exploiting the law for political ideology, it's the American Way!

And you've gone off into quoting me while actually responding to your unvoiced stream of consciousness again. We're done here.

[GGT]

Well excuuuse me for expressing a layperson's confusion. I should have known better than to engage you in a discussion, Fuzzy. My bad, sorry to have bothered you.

[LittleFuzzy]

Well excuuuse me for expressing a layperson's confusion. I should have known better than to engage you in a discussion, Fuzzy. My bad, sorry to have bothered you.

You're not engaging me in a discussion. You're engaging yourself in a discussion. You may quote my words but eventually your replies have stopped having anything to do with my words which you're ostensibly replying to. It's you replying to yourself. No room for me in a discussion like that.

[GGT]

You're not engaging me in a discussion. You're engaging yourself in a discussion. You may quote my words but eventually your replies have stopped having anything to do with my words which you're ostensibly replying to. It's you replying to yourself. No room for me in a discussion like that.

Of course there's "room" for you in this discussion! We get into the weeds when you cite judicial review and legal precedents, but that doesn't preclude you from having your own personal opinions about how things should be, under the law, or why.

I don't remember what you said when CA passed Prop 8 in 2008 (to ban same sex marriage), even tho you had a personal reason to disagree with it. But that's not why it was eventually overturned. So yeah, discussions matter, especially within the context of personal rights and civil liberties and constitutional rights.

This is not a discussion I'm having with myself. This is a discussion for our whole country.

[LittleFuzzy]

This right here? I wouldn't wish this on someone I hated, much less the whole country. You reply to me but your "understanding" of what I've written is wildly at odds with my actual words and makes sense only if it's got nothing to do with what I've said. Any extended discussion with you can have only one endpoint. The realization that it's not actually a discussion but you making a one-sided soliloquy with pauses for someone else to enter filler. Just go write a blog or webjournal

[GGT]

This right here? I wouldn't wish this on someone I hated, much less the whole country.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Fuzzy. And it's unfortunate that our national political discourse has taken that personal attack route, too.

You reply to me but your "understanding" of what I've written is wildly at odds with my actual words and makes sense only if it's got nothing to do with what I've said. Any extended discussion with you can have only one endpoint. The realization that it's not actually a discussion but you making a one-sided soliloquy with pauses for someone else to enter filler. Just go write a blog or webjournal

I can understand what you say but still disagree with it. Don't patronize me just because I don't frame it in the legaleze you want, or expect. And don't get caught up in the pedantic terminology (throwing out the baby with the bathwater) in your attempt to be right.

I'm trying to be serious about serious issues, without making personal insults.

What are you doing?

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Fuzzy. And it's unfortunate that our national political discourse has taken that personal attack route, too.



I can understand what you say but still disagree with it. Don't patronize me just because I don't frame it in the legaleze you want, or expect.

How about you just frame it as you not being convinced, rather than what you normally do which is claim that I'm the one advancing the position you're extolling? Stop putting your words in my mouth.

[GGT]

OK Fuzzy, I'll admit to some confusion between principle and process, especially when it comes to abortion laws and SCOTUS rulings. I don't use terminology like a lawyer or legal scholar would, which drives you nuts, but I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry if it comes out that way.

I'm just trying to understand what is happening, and what has changed since Roe v Wade or even Planned Parenthood v Casey was decided. (Other than politics, and changes within the 'conservative' Republican Party, and the SCOTUS members.)

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was interpreted as the Constitutional protection for individual Liberty and Privacy, right? Back when even 'conservative' Republicans like Saint Reagan were pro-choice. If that no longer works for surgical abortions, then what happens to pharmaceuticals that cause miscarriage, or Birth Control in general?

AND if SCOTUS interpretations of the 14th Amendment have changed so much then Kavanaugh might have his way....and return certain "Rights" back to the States. Would that include gay sex and same-sex marriage, too?

[LittleFuzzy]

That sounds like you're asking a bunch of rhetorical questions.

[GGT]

What's wrong with me asking rhetorical questions about abortion laws and SCOTUS rulings? After all, there is a domino effect that impacts *everyone's* private lives and bodily autonomy, including yours.

Since it's the Evangelical Christians within the Republican Party that want a Constitutional Personhood Amendment giving zygotes equal rights, you could say that's as a bunch of rhetoric, too.



edit: And it's not 'rhetoric' when states like Texas are now actively trying to ban abortive pharmaceuticals being sent in the mail, even tho updates to federal law allows it.

[LittleFuzzy]

What's wrong with just making statements rather than pretending that "I'm just trying to understand what is happening, and what has changed since Roe v Wade or even Planned Parenthood v Casey was decided"?

[Aimless]

American Taliban are at it again:

https://apnews.com/article/us-suprem...54045cee31b6e3

Obviously gross, but the rationale is also just so fucking stupid.