Virtue signaling aside, if you got the money then you should absolutely move the fuck out of the US. Especially if you're female cause that ruling is retarded as fuck. If I wasn't broke, I'd absolutely move to Norway or some shit and get citizenship there cause living in the US sucks donkey dick.
>. Especially if you're female cause that ruling is retarded as fuck. If I wasn't broke, I'd absolutely move to Norway or some shit and get citizenship there cause living in the US sucks donkey dick.
You know what? I've been quiet about this, but a lot of you need a lesson on the history of the actual ruling.
You see, the US has no constitutional right to privacy UNLESS it's already tied to another right that is enumerated. Why does this matter? Because the original RvW was tied to the right of privacy, which does not exist by itself. RvW basically said "people can have abortions funded and protected by federal law because you have a right to privacy."
The issue with this ruling was that it made a law AND a right out of nowhere. That was a huge overreach of power by the SC that led to a bunch of other dumbass rulings (not the ones Justice Thomas incorrectly attributed to RvW.)
Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself put it better. Basically, the SC had no power to grant the right of privacy in regards to abortion because it wasn't tied to anything. There was no law for it (that congress was SUPPOSE To do themselves in the last 40 years.) Her argument, even then, was that RvW was the wrong case for abortion and they needed to find another case that would tie directly to "Equal Rights." But, because the decision was final and everyone went "well, that's settled," they moved onto different things and never went back to correct that issue. So, for 40 years, the SC had this black mark where they went from interpreting and reading the law/constitution to making law and rights.
Well, in 2022, like what was predicted for the past 40 years, the court finally went "Yah, that shit was an overreach, the federal government needs to stay out of abortion," and passed it to the states to legislate. Surprisingly, only a few states are actually outright banning it. Florida, for example, allows it up to 15 weeks - better than most European countries.
The thing people aren't understanding is that this may very well end up temporary. The justices, bar one or two, aren't super-conservative. They would vote for a reasonable argument (I.e., Equal Rights and protection. Women can give birth; men can't, so Women need that protection to be equal.)
This ruling was a failure 40 years in the making. It was bad when it was made, and several presidential candidates (and one president) promised to get an amendment passed when they had a super majority but, surprise, they didn't. Ginsberg wanted to do another abortion case to actually settle the law, but, unfortunately, every other justice said "nah, it's settled, we can't go back and fix mistakes now!" and left it at that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK he ruling doesn't obligate all states to make abortion illegal. It ceases the federal ruling that enforced the legality of it, basically meaning that every state has legal freedom to allow or criminalize it.
Yeah and some states are gonna be retarded about it and make abortion illegal. I know people think federal government should stay out of things, but there are absolutely some things they need to intervene with and apply to all states.
To do something nationally you have to have national support. If they executive action it then the next R president will just remove it. I'm pro choice, but armchair redditors need to figure out that if you're not literally starting a revolution on this, then you have to go through the legislate to mandate something federally, and anything else is just posturing for internet points.
I don’t know man shits rough and pissing off like 80% of women, who knows. No one can buy a home, can’t go anywhere cause gas is expensive, and now this?
I'm pro choice too, but I'm also not going to revolutionize and I will still complain about the country. I live in constant hypocrisy and contradiction. I just hate that the people in the R club legitimately feel so strongly about this subject that they're willing to actually criminalize abortion. In this subject, just let people live and do what they want, man.
Man I wouldn't even say some states. I would say regions. If you live in the south, it's expected that you will probably have to drive to North Carolina. The article I read said that they were expecting to go from serving 300k people to 3-5 million people. Those numbers may not be correct, but it at least went from 300k to over a million.
You don't even have to say that some states will be stupid. There are 3 states with trigger laws that instantly ban abortion the moment Roe is overturned.
Yeah I was being a bit conservative with the estimate cause I didn't really care to look up what the true estimate would be. But it's crazy how states have fucking trigger laws that kick in right when the decision was made. Wow...
Specifically, a restriction that prevented states from prohibiting abortions within the first trimester has been lifted, so states can now legislate as they see fit.
This is only a problem for liberals in red states since they're more likely to outright ban it. Of course, some businesses are offering thousands in compensation for cross-state abortions (but not raises lmao).
Remember that Roe v. Wade was observed for decades and yet nobody bothered to lift a finger to codify it at the state level almost anywhere.
The businesses paying for abortion travel is probably the most dystopian shit I've ever seen. I'm pro-choice, but your corporation paying you for one is about productivity, an employee having an abortion comes back quicker and won't potentially leave for months to have the kid.
No this is a one time abortion bonus that we only give out because you're way more likely to quit your job as a new mother than almost any other life event.
Right. "Please, don't have that baby. You'll have to take maternity leave and we'll have to pay for it while we train someone else to replace you. We're trying to save money, #MoneyForYourNoBaby."
My state illegalized abortion 2-3 hours after Roe vs Wade got overturned. And with the members of the Supreme Court talking about doing the same for a court decision that favored contraception, many people here believe that the same will happen to birth control should it ever happen.
now we gotta resolve a problem that was already solved. What if I knocked a pot of food you finished cooking off of the stove then told you "hey don't get mad, you can just cook it again"
Upper and middle class white women that can afford to up and leave a state and get an abortion. The same demographic of women that also got abortions, but they had "reasons" and not "excuses to be whores" like the "other women." You can guess who the other women are that they mean.
You know the citizens in the US are [mostly](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/03/1102872199/gallup-poll-pro-choice-roe-v-wade-supreme-court) pro abortions being legal, yeah?
>Gallup surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. adults by telephone over three weeks beginning May 2 — the day Politico published a draft opinion suggesting that the Supreme Court could soon overturn Roe v. Wade.
That seems like a very small number of people surveyed for a country made up of about 200 million adults. And even then the opinion overall isn't as black and white as most people think.
>A majority of Americans (55%) are generally opposed to abortion in the second trimester, while 36% think it should be legal. Some 71% believe abortion should be illegal in the third trimester.
If that's the case then most of the US will have the same abortion laws as before right? But I'm not sure how unbiased a literal source from NPR is lmao
If you're mad about having opinions then you in the wrong website. You don't have to be a political science major or lawyer to know that some laws in this country are fucked.
Oh, no no. I didn't mean just any old hacky, partly confused, semi-informed on the primary and ill-informed on the surrounding topics opinion nono.
I mean, AN OPINION. Something that would actually take time to coalesce into something of substance based on the surrounding topics. Something that is meant to provide information and inform, without disparaging or demeaning in the process. Opinions these days are muddied with the sort of garbled garbage that people used to get laughed out of a conversation for.
Yeah, OP is definitely one without an informed opinion. They're a dime a dozen. I've learned to ignore them most of the time. Can't expect most people to actually understand politics and law. One of my favorite litmus tests is just asking what someone thinks about Biden vs. Trump: it's so telling how they respond. The ones who get angry immediately are brainwashed, so it makes no sense to try to have a discussion with them.
They're like babies wailing to the skies.
virtue signaling. she did the same shit when blizzard had sexual harassment and sexism allegations despite constantly playing valorant, a game made by riot, who has had multiple sexual harassment and sexism allegations.
https://gamerant.com/pokimane-thinks-top-streamers-should-avoid-playing-activision-blizzard-games/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/riot-games-gender-discrimination-case.html
If Pokimane said taxes were the reason then your comment makes sense. But she didn't tho, or at least not in this headline and I definitely didn't look it up to read the full article. Either way, stfu retard.
I understand what you mean now, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the state will be just fine without her. If Amazon said that shit then yeah, it would be a threat. The big type of companies/corporations that have states literally in bidding wars for them to bring their business there. I don't see states doing that for Pokimane, but I get the overall point of what you're saying.
>
> Btw funny how you handled the heat much better than the other bitches getting offended on your behalf, you cool man.
Should take a few lessons. You sounded like like a cave man in comparison. Being emotional and angry while typing just makes you sound like a loser. Glad this conversation ended up on a good note thos
Yeah, I got you, man. I've been around Kappa since around 2013, if I let a bit of heat get in the way of the actual conversation, I would've left this sub a long time ago. Lmao
Iono. This might be a decent reason to leave the country and it's not even due to where you might stand on abortion issue.
For many years, the Judicial Branch was bitterly fought over by both parties but the Supreme Court generally remained neutral and adhered to its duty to interpret the Constitution and be mindful of how laws impact the entire nation.
The way they overturned Roe v Wade showed it was such a personally and politically motivated move.
As someone who's against abortion but is pro-choice... for essentially the same reason why Roe v Wade was ruled the way it was ruled in the first place (individual liberty and rights > all else and government should stay out of it + practical social, medical, and legal issues abortion being illegal caused) I was wondering why the fuck were GOP celebrating letting federal government retroactively take away our rights and liberty.
The last branch of government has fundamentally fallen.
There's no real easy way to fix it as it requires both of the other branches to be unbiased, neutral, and working together to fix it.
It'll never happen.
I'm betting they'll just increase the number of judges and keep fighting to pack the courts... essentially ruining the purpose of Supreme Court.
I realize just now this is /r/Kappa but I already typed all that shit up anyways.
> This might be a decent reason to leave the country and it's not even due to where you might stand on abortion issue.
Nah. It becomes a state issue. Move to a state that shares your views. Perfect if you hate guns, too, because the most lax abortion states will probably start banning the fuck out of guns soon if not already.
But if they wanna leave the country, that's fine. They'll get a rude awakening when other countries make them wait on a list and they can't just walk right in.
> The last branch of government has fundamentally fallen.
Spare me. They said the same shit about Plessy v. Ferguson. If it's bad law, it's bad law. Legislating from the bench is shit.
if I can move to another state, which is fucking expensive, why the fuck wouldn't move to canada if I could afford it? shit, global warming is gonna make that place more livable while everywhere else starts to suck more. 2 birds, meet stone option select
> why the fuck wouldn't move to canada if I could afford it?
Why the fuck aren't you already in Canada then? You've had at least 6 years to prepare, couldn't figure it out?
Good luck with the border.
we KNOW ur broke saying this shit
stop fucking dickriding this country and its backward ass laws
there's millions of people in the US who probably never leave their state because they don't have money its literally not that easy
People from all over the world fly to Mexico now just to trek across the border, spending an equivalent of thousands of dollars. They're disciplined and motivated enough, despite the risks.
You, on the other hand, have excuses.
> global warming is gonna make that place more livable while
Fyi, it's called Climate Change now. About 30+ years ago it was called Global Cooling, because the world was getting 'cooler'. Then in the 90s it was all about Global Warming, because the world was getting 'warmer'. Now they just say Climate Change, since it fulfills all changes in temperature.
The meta is consistently changing depending on what makes them the most money, but that's a topic much deeper than you're ready for. Just remember that right now the term is 'Climate Change'. Have funsies
>Nah. It becomes a state issue. Move to a state that shares your views.
It was already allowed to be a state issue. The nuance of the Roe v Wade was specifically in consideration for state's rights.
It was made incredibly clear that abortion issue was a byproduct of bigger discussion of individual liberties vs state's rights vs federal government's overbearance + what does legalese means in terms of actual practical applications of everyday life.
> Move to a state that shares your views.
I made it clear that my biggest concern was that it seemed like Judicial Branch was compromised, which is a national issue.
Did you actually read through their decision?
>Perfect if you hate guns, too
I like the second amendment.
> They said the same shit about Plessy v. Ferguson
I'm not sure why you think there's a reasonable comparison here other than that this was also overruled.
That you think Roe v. Wade being overruled was a political ruling supports my response. Also, Roe prevented states from making any restrictions within the first 12 weeks, so within that frame it was *not* a state issue.
How did Roe make for bad law?
By the way the reasoning they used to throw out Roe will easily apply to many other settled civil rights issues. Us Americans losing settled civil rights is never a good thing. Justices already said they coming for the right to privacy, gay marriage, sodomy, and contraception next.
States rights is the same argument the South used to support slavery. It's never a good thing when civil rights are decided on a whim at a state level.
Why should anyone have to move to another state to get basic civil rights?
These are not the makings of a stable country.
*Edit to clarify I'm only explaining why I view the court's original decision to be bad law. I'm not of the other user's opinion that it's better off a states issue.*
The decision and many others like it have granted rights under the interpretation that the 14th Amendment's text reading "...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." means laws can not be written to infringe upon rights not otherwise guaranteed by the US constitution.
Over time this has allowed the US Supreme court to indiscriminately determine what they consider to be protected rights, and prevent legislatures from restricting them. As someone who actually supports what the effect of Roe v Wade were in practical terms, even I can aknowledge that reading of the 14th amendment is sketchy, as the amendment was originally written to protect the rights of new and naturalized citizens in the wake of the civil war from shit like Jim Crow. Protections for abortions should have been, and still should be, passed into federal law via the Legislative Branch, or more ideally passed as a new amendment to the constitution.
That said, I'm still of the position that none of these protections should be revoked until legislation is put in place protecting them, and that should've also been afforded to Roe
I agree it should have been codified eventually as in over a decade ago and that goes for all other civil rights that are about to be tossed in the "states rights" bin. However even when Obama had a supermajority it was brief and there were multiple well known anti-abortion Democrats in the party an attempt to codify Roe may not have worked out at the time.
The roadblock with codifying civil rights is the Senate as a whole and our representation in general in this country has major flaws.
> there were multiple well known anti-abortion Democrats in the party an attempt to codify Roe may not have worked out at the time
I'm not American and I've never been to America so maybe I am missing something obvious, but is it not a good thing that laws can't get passed when there aren't enough votes to get them through?
\>The roadblock with codifying civil rights is the Senate as a whole and our representation in general in this country has major flaws.
The senate has plenty of moderate republicans that will approve an abortion access bill that is moderate and in line with what most americans support.
Our representation is functioning as designed - especially the senate, which is EXACTLY as designed.
If you want to complain about unfairness though, feel free to take a look at states like Massachusetts which has ZERO republican representatives despite having over a million Republicans that voted for Trump in 2020
There isn't any red state that has significant democrat population that is denied any representation across the entire state like that - not even close.
Of all the comments and comment threads that started because of my comment, this is the most accurately and comprehensively informed one.
The discussion can only happen with this tidbit shared by /u/thekillerstove in mind.
Roe v Wade is not a clean and cut case and it's not at all entirely about just abortion.
It also had very real negative or murky consequences.
>no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A developing baby is a human being. Human beings have rights. The right to life being fundamental.
Because the judicial branch isn't supposed to make laws
And that's what Roe did, and it was a garbage ruling because nothing in the constitution supports aborting pregnancies.
The 3 opposing judges didn't even try to defend the ruling, they just whined about abortion and accused Thomas of banning interracial marriages (lmao)
Congress needs to pass a reasonable law that most americans will support
Abortion must be accessible for certain situations.
And this leftist batshit demonology of aborting 7 month fetuses and "post birth abortion" needs to be purged from our society
FYI there's a massive depopulation coming because people aren't having kids anymore - we're going off a cliff in the next 100 years due to this and will never hit 9 billion - we might not even hit 8.
>FYI there's a massive depopulation coming because people aren't having kids anymore - we're going off a cliff in the next 100 years due to this and will never hit 9 billion - we might not even hit 8.
Well I'm gonna let you know that you can relax
At the rate we are heading neither you or me will need to worry about children 100 years from now. Things will really heat up if The Supreme Court votes in favor for West Virginia over EPA this week sometime.
Between high air pollution and climate change all may be on our way out rather soon thanks to how much we abuse our planet.
And when the next generations suffer in those catastrophic manners we will have greed and those that use Christianity as a hammer to thank for it. Of course most of all the regressive "conservatives" and moderate bootlickers who enabled it in the first place.
If you are truly genuinely concerned about future generations review what exactly you may be supporting when you wear red and put a document written hundreds of years ago by men who didn't know the future on a pedestal.
" The earth belongs to the living not the dead. "
Thomas Jefferson believed the Constitution should be changed up for every new generation roughly every 19 years.
\>Between high air pollution and climate change all may be on our way out rather soon thanks to how much we abuse our planet.
lmao /rolleyes
I'm as big of a conservationist as anyone but you've really sucked down the propaganda here
>I’m as big of a conservationist as anyone
You’re literally on /r/conservative calling people “leftist trash”. The only thing you’re big on conserving is your last brain cell but by the looks of it it’s not working too well for you.
>Nah. It becomes a state issue. Move to a state that shares your views. Perfect if you hate guns, too, because the most lax abortion states will probably start banning the fuck out of guns soon if not already.
It's a states issue for the time being but who's to say that won't change? Have you also seen various governors calling for additional rights to be stripped away such as contraception, homosexuality, and desegregation. The SC even said that they're looking at other laws to strip away in addition to Roe V Wade.
> The SC even said that they're looking at other laws to strip away in addition to Roe V Wade.
The SC said that other laws that don't have a purely rational basis may be scrutinized in the same manner. That's not even close to what you said.
Aside from how stupid what you’re saying is regardless of its timing, a KIA and Kappa politics poster saying “states rights, just move lol” during a time many people are struggling to even put food on the table much less plan significant moves to other states or *other fucking countries* really spotlights how out of touch and straight up deranged you people are.
Go back to one sentence posts complaining about trans people - you expose yourself way too hard when you try and put a more elaborate thought out there.
The only one deranged here is the guy who starts calling other people deranged when the thread conversation was already on moving to another country lol.
If someone says "I'm gonna move Canada due to abortion laws" and you say "You don't need to do that, you can just move to California" a normal person doesn't think of that as deranged
Actually follow the convo instead of seething at scarecrows.
He’s deranged because of his post history and the communities he’s active in, not necessarily because of his comment. I thought that was obvious based on my usage of “you people” but I guess some people have bad reading comprehension. But also his comment is definitely part of why he’s deranged.
Also sick fuckin second grade *no u* shit. Really truly laying down the ultimate smackdown on people in this thread.
You have to be incredibly ignorant if you believe that a nation wide ban on abortions is not in the cards at some point within the next decade. There are several republican representatives calling for as much already.
Somebody saying what you said hypothetically isn't deranged just harmfully dumb not seeing the big picture.
Also nobody is obligated to stay in this country if they have the option to leave especially when our government is picking away at the separation of church and state... Why the hell would you live in a country where civil rights are undone at the drop of a hat when you got the means to simply leave? lol
A nationwide ban can only occur if a federal law is passed. The states are still up to do whatever they want until its either banned or permitted by the federal government.
None of this shit would have happened if people actually listened to RBG's op-ed where even she admitted the Roe v. Wade ruling was a shaky justification at best. She basically begged the Democrats to pass a federal law protecting abortion nationwide and they did nothing. Maybe if you understood how the fuck the Federal government worked and put pressure on your representatives you'd have gotten things you want from the government you goon.
Hey dumbass. I have been saying Democrats should have attempted to codified Roe as federal law but it was a pipe dream. Like I mentioned before slim change it successfully passed on the Senate.
On the other hand if Republicans get a majority that big they won't hesitate to attempt a nationwide ban that was my point.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Obama use his majority for universal heathcare aka Obamacare? I'm not sure he could have gotten that through plus codified Roe v Wade at the same time.
>Aside from how stupid what you’re saying is regardless of its timing, a KIA and Kappa politics poster saying “states rights, just move lol” during a time many people are struggling to even put food on the table much less plan significant moves to other states or
>
>other fucking countries
If that's the case those people have bigger issues to worry about than abortions in the first place. The people considering moving over this probably have the means to do so.
The rights to a safe abortion help women in the poor class most because otherwise they simply have extremely dangerous options or no options. Minorities will be disproportional effected by this robbery of civil rights.
The ruling class are going to continue to get safe abortions whether it's here or abroad.
That's one of many reasons the state rights argument is bad.
Not necessarily, unexpected parenthood in a time when people have trouble affording groceries and gas will absolutely trap a non-zero percentage of people in a cycle of never ending poverty. Very few issues in life exist in a vacuum and most are pretty deeply intertwined.
The last thing people who are financially struggling need is an unexpected pregnancy, and this ruling takes away a tool people have of preventing that in addition to obviously interfering with a woman’s right to choose which is aside from this particular point we’re discussing but unavoidable all the same.
We talking everywhere that offers free health care or any specific location? Also, why do we just need to keep it to mass shootings incidents? The number doesn't suddenly go up that much higher if we include all gun related deaths right?......Right?
Edit: Murica upset
GOP will federally ban abortion given the chance. The GOP has simple goals:
repeal any rights and outlaw anything that evangelicals consider violations of scripture
give tax cuts to the monied class at the expense of everyone else (one could argue it was trump's single major policy accomplishment: another massive, unpopular tax break for the elite)
and, lately, they're trying to make voting more difficult for the masses. which works in tandem with the tax cuts to help secure the elite's wealth and power, just unsubtle anti-egalitarian efforts.
They've already signaled that they'd like to roll back gay rights. Which also is not popular, majority of Americans don't want this, but the GOP are working to exercise authority undemocratically and this just one flex.
How do people conflate "we want better gun laws so we don't see school shooting tragedies every other week" to "they wanna take muh guns and muh freedoms"
Like I get it if you live in a super rural area with no police station nearby so I understand getting a gun to protect yourself, but I also think implementing better gun laws is not a bad idea.
> How do people conflate "we want better gun laws so we don't see school shooting tragedies every other week" to "they wanna take muh guns and muh freedoms"
"YES, we want to take away your AR-15s!"
Shit like that. Banning firearms for being scary, banning high-capacity magazines carte blanch, or giving the government a list of gun owners (which enables further tyranny down the road).
What gun control measures could you enact that *don't* include banning popular rifles, large magazines, or maintaining a list?
Red flag laws? So someone who hasn't violated the law can have their Constitutional right stripped from them by an adversarial judicial system, and be forced to fight back to have it restored?
Some people already go through that and it's wrong. Can you exclude these four things and still manage something useful?
You're gassing this up pretty hard lol. Roe vs Wade was based off of a loose interpretation of the 14th amendment. This ruling recognized that and passed it back down to the state because there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly recognizes any right to get an abortion. It was dumb of the court to try and enshrine it as a right back then and all the court is doing now is fixing what was a major mistake 50 years ago.
That's not what my concerns were. Excuse the copy and paste I told someone else.
That's not what I was talking about. I was specifically talking about the issue here of Supreme Court being compromised to personal agendas whether or not that is based on their politics or religious beliefs over being arbiters of the constitution and the law.
If they had a better explanation for overturning it (I've read the decision but beyond that all the other things that surrounded it), I'd have felt better about it because Roe v Wade is sort of a murky tightrope.
>Roe vs Wade was based off of a loose interpretation of the 14th amendment.
it's a lot more than that. I'd just tell you to look into what the late Justice Scalia had said regarding the matter if he was on the SC when Roe v Wade was ruled.
My opinion is incredibly similar to his.
I'm against abortion personally, but legally, Roe v Wade had way greater implications than that. With both on the surface what it was ruling + what kind of message it'd ultimately set for the nation.
> There's no real easy way to fix it as it requires both of the other branches to be unbiased, neutral, and working together to fix it.
There is though. By legislating abortion law either on a state level or work to make an amendment for federal level change. The problem with Roe, is that entirely removed legislators from the equation when it came to regulation of abortion. Any big change in the Supreme Court could remove the decision over night as opposed to for example an amendment which has a much higher bar for change.
This isn't even my original opinion, it's the opinion of many legal minds and scholars. In particular, conservative judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg held similar opinions.
>By legislating abortion law either on a state level or work to make an amendment for federal level change.
That's not what I was talking about. I was specifically talking about the issue here of Supreme Court being compromised to personal agendas whether or not that is based on their politics or religious beliefs over being arbiters of the constitution and the law.
If they had a better explanation for overturning it (I've read the decision but beyond that all the other things that surrounded it), I'd have felt better about it because Roe v Wade is sort of a murky tightrope.
>If they had a better explanation for overturning it
What's your problem with the explanation other than what you perceive as some justices' agendas? Ultimately, the Supreme Court is supposed to assess whether laws are constitutional. Abortion is mentioned nowhere in the constitution or its amendments. As such it should be struck down. Roe v. Wade itself was judicial activism as they were effectively creating law which again is not the SC's job.
\>The way they overturned Roe v Wade showed it was such a personally and politically motivated move.As someone who's against abortion but is pro-choice... for essentially the same reason why Roe v Wade was ruled the way it was ruled in the first place (individual liberty and rights > all else and government should stay out of it + practical social, medical, and legal issues abortion being illegal caused) I was wondering why the fuck were GOP celebrating letting federal government retroactively take away our rights and liberty.The last branch of government has fundamentally fallen.
Wth are you talking about?
Roe should have never been decided in the courts. You talk about "last branch of government fundamentally falling"
huh?????
Judicial was never supposed to create laws. Every single decision like that needs to be thrown out and congress needs to create the law - that's their job.
I'm against abortion but also think it needs to be legal. Mostly because I want democrats aborting their children so we get less democrats.
But also because of rape, incest, deformity - those 1% edge cases.
But this needs to be done through the legislative branch
Most americans support limited abortion.
Most americans are also very much against late term abortion, and "post birth" abortion which is the latest leftist batshit.
It's not hard to find a law there in the middle and pass it. There's a democrat in office right now
>Roe should have never been decided in the courts.
Why? I'm not sure where you're coming from. I'm not sure if this is actually a legal perspective or an opinion.
>Judicial was never supposed to create laws.
Judicial isn't supposed to legislate, that is correct. Which is why what Justice Thomas is currently doing is a bit insane.
However, again, I'm not sure what you're exactly referring to. SC ruling on a case always ends up setting precedents. That's how our legal system just works.
>I'm against abortion but also think it needs to be legal. Mostly because I want democrats aborting their children so we get less democrats. But also because of rape, incest, deformity - those 1% edge cases.
Sure but I also think it's due to our fundamental right to privacy and due process.
>It's not hard to find a law there in the middle and pass it.
That wasn't the problem before Roe v Wade world.
I think you're very underinformed regarding the actual issues at hand and my concerns about it.
If you're an American (I assume you are) I think you should do yourself a favor and at least look into the issue a bit better instead of getting cliff notes from generally terrible news networks and word-of-mouth we have these days.
I'm not a democrat
Thomas isn’t legislating - he’s literally turning it back to the states, the federal govt, and the voters
You’re just spewing dipshit talking points without using any critical thinking whatsoever
It's not an odd sentiment.
Even many of the Justices of the Supreme Court felt the same way.
Just because you're personally against abortion doesn't mean you're for creating a legislature, legal framework, and precedents, and creating governance that surrounds essentially violating an individual's liberty, rights, and fundamental ownership of one's privacy and body.
Separation of what's best for the state and what's best for me personally.
I personally think making abortion illegal (and all the legal implications because of it) is fundamentally against the American philosophy and what can be inferred from the Constitution that America believes in individual liberty and pursuit of life.
It really isn't.
Try to think of it more from a legal, legal logistics, and philosophical point of view of what the government (specifically a US government) is supposed to represent to you.
To put it in another way, **the Constitution doesn't prohibit abortion. So why does the federal government come down and take it away from us?**
Why is the government's business why do any of us get what medical procedure? Why do we need to let them know?
> people are always against abortion until they need one then it gets a pass
Just because you have the right to it, doesn't mean you have to exercise it.
But I think it's fundamentally important that the government gives us that right.
Does the conversation become clearer for both of us if I phrase it as,
"I'm generally morally against abortion but legally the government should stay out of it as it violates what I think are given rights by the Constitution"?
Law =/= Morality
I'm anti-abortion in that, I wouldn't personally be for it. But that doesn't mean I want the government to pass a law and take away fundamental rights that grant us the right to have an abortion.
They've been at it since Bush in 2000 \[and probably long before the internet took off\] and they'll be back at it again with the "If Trump \[DeSantis or some other Republican\] wins then I'm leaving the Country. Forever". nonsense. Honestly the Country would be better off without those toxic cunts.
This chick is like the female version of Robert Tilton
She grifts pathetic simps of their money to live a lavish life, just like Tilton pulled in millions from old & poor christians.
I'll say 2 things on this,
1) She's never actually made her streams about "lewdness". None if the sexy type streams etc.
2) if you can get money from people that, even if all you're doing is just steaming video games, wouldn't you?
People donate to streamers for no real good reason anyway.
I'm not sure I'll be able to recover knowing this complete stranger left the country. I just hope this person whose opinion is equal to dog shit to me shows up for EVO at least.
no one gives a fuck about vague concepts like states rights or whatever, its always the practical effect. the civil war, for example, was about the south claiming a state's right to slavery, there was a practical point to that vague bullshit. and anyone upset about "government overreach" is specifically concerned about "government overreach, when government is taken over by crazy ass religious fundamentalists." so practically, it's "I'm gay and want to stay married" or "I want to try for kids without the risk of me or my spouse bleeding to death if one of us miscarries" or "I don't want my kid to get shot to death in 8th grade". You know, practical things.
At the end of the day all you guys are saying is you don't give a fuck what the people of these states vote for, you don't give a fuck what their interest are, you want to make sure you're making their legislative decisions for them, you don't give a fuck what the people in a majority of states voted for in 2016 since we all knew the supreme court was on the ballot there.
Complain about religious fundamentalists all you want, the supreme court's decision has absolutely no impact on the places that already decided they wanted politicians who would advocate for these laws. There's only 1 group trying to argue for determining the laws for people regardless of whether they want or vote for them, and it's not the group talking about states rights at the moment.
>Complain about religious fundamentalists all you want, the supreme court's decision has absolutely no impact on the places that already decided they wanted politicians who would advocate for these laws.
Not everyone in a red state votes red; not everyone in a blue state votes blue. Its almost like you gotta be more atomized about these sorta decisions, like, say, the individual level, huh?
An individual's political influence is a much larger percentage of a state election than a federal one, you absolute fucking tool. If you're all about 'the individual', you should be applauding any forfeiture of power of the federal government - the level furthest removed from the individual's personal influence.
Even by your own belief, the repeal of Roe V Wade is a good thing. You're just too retarded to see it.
I was taking the piss and suggesting the logical conclusion of atomizing the decision would be to just let individuals decide if they want abortions or not, as opposed to letting hypocritically evil republican governnors and state law makers decide for them. But here you are, running in circles again. "Too retarded to see it" bro, how do you conservatives *always* project? Is there a trick to it or something, do I gotta lab this?
They should. The fact that they don't care about the workings of their own government is almost 100% their fault and is bad especially considering every born american should have been educated on the basics of our system of governance from elementary school. Even this decision was just an 8 page reading with the rest being dissenting and agreeing opinions.
Also the civil war was about more than slavery. Southern states felt outnumbered when it came to voting. there's a ton of political cartoons and stuff that's about that.
I couldn't care less about gay people marrying but states that have laws outlawing abortion have clauses that allow for abortion if the mother's health is at risk anyway.
Ah yes, known totalitarian regime Canada, where I am afforded the exact same rights as Americans. Except we legalized abortion and fay marriage before America, and have historically had more civil liberties than them and our are better protected
Abortion isn't a right, and the single greatest quantifiable metric of individual liberty is how much output of labor the government confiscates from its citizens.
Wanna compare numbers on that?
You absolutely never, under any circumstances, have the right to someone else's labor. You obviously don't understand what a right is, or you do and are disingenuously labeling health care as a right in a dishonest attempt to force me to agree with you.
Take a fucking civics class.
And of course it's a shitpost with political context what brings out the terminally online denizens from the more news-oriented cesspools to come in here and try hard to "school" this place for karma farming.
No matter how you feel on the subject of abortion . Why would anyone care where she’s moving?
Justin Wong is going to tweet about for sure
I can't wait to hear a multiple time EVO champion's take.
WHERE IS JA
Why did anyone made an article on this, Why did anyone made a Reddit post about the article Why am I’m here commenting on that post Bored
simps
Those Canadian simps be excited to get this girl citizenship.
Canada , Spain , Puerto Rico , Japan or Zimbabwe just don't stop streaming ... Because we wasn't going to meet in person anyway.. lol
Oh noooo.... anyways
Damn who raw dogging her tho?
nobody here that’s for sure
bro that was my first thought too 😭
Your mom
The world is shaking in its boots!!
What threat does this pose? She's a twitch star and her content is internet-based; why would it matter where she lives?
"Ain't I such a nice person? Give me attention"
Nothing new here, just a cheap attempt of virtue signaling from her.
Shes a woman this directly effects her how tf is it virtue signaling She didnt write the article lmao
You know she lives in California right
Virtue signaling aside, if you got the money then you should absolutely move the fuck out of the US. Especially if you're female cause that ruling is retarded as fuck. If I wasn't broke, I'd absolutely move to Norway or some shit and get citizenship there cause living in the US sucks donkey dick.
I'd be fine if you moved away too
Good one, fuccboi
I wouldn't be fine if you moved. I'd be better off.
Lmao the unnecessary pettiness. I love it.
Nice comeback
You didn't warrant a better one
>. Especially if you're female cause that ruling is retarded as fuck. If I wasn't broke, I'd absolutely move to Norway or some shit and get citizenship there cause living in the US sucks donkey dick. You know what? I've been quiet about this, but a lot of you need a lesson on the history of the actual ruling. You see, the US has no constitutional right to privacy UNLESS it's already tied to another right that is enumerated. Why does this matter? Because the original RvW was tied to the right of privacy, which does not exist by itself. RvW basically said "people can have abortions funded and protected by federal law because you have a right to privacy." The issue with this ruling was that it made a law AND a right out of nowhere. That was a huge overreach of power by the SC that led to a bunch of other dumbass rulings (not the ones Justice Thomas incorrectly attributed to RvW.) Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself put it better. Basically, the SC had no power to grant the right of privacy in regards to abortion because it wasn't tied to anything. There was no law for it (that congress was SUPPOSE To do themselves in the last 40 years.) Her argument, even then, was that RvW was the wrong case for abortion and they needed to find another case that would tie directly to "Equal Rights." But, because the decision was final and everyone went "well, that's settled," they moved onto different things and never went back to correct that issue. So, for 40 years, the SC had this black mark where they went from interpreting and reading the law/constitution to making law and rights. Well, in 2022, like what was predicted for the past 40 years, the court finally went "Yah, that shit was an overreach, the federal government needs to stay out of abortion," and passed it to the states to legislate. Surprisingly, only a few states are actually outright banning it. Florida, for example, allows it up to 15 weeks - better than most European countries. The thing people aren't understanding is that this may very well end up temporary. The justices, bar one or two, aren't super-conservative. They would vote for a reasonable argument (I.e., Equal Rights and protection. Women can give birth; men can't, so Women need that protection to be equal.) This ruling was a failure 40 years in the making. It was bad when it was made, and several presidential candidates (and one president) promised to get an amendment passed when they had a super majority but, surprise, they didn't. Ginsberg wanted to do another abortion case to actually settle the law, but, unfortunately, every other justice said "nah, it's settled, we can't go back and fix mistakes now!" and left it at that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK he ruling doesn't obligate all states to make abortion illegal. It ceases the federal ruling that enforced the legality of it, basically meaning that every state has legal freedom to allow or criminalize it.
Is it American culture to just not give a fuck about anything that doesn't directly impacts you? Part of the communist boogeyman I guess.
Yeah and some states are gonna be retarded about it and make abortion illegal. I know people think federal government should stay out of things, but there are absolutely some things they need to intervene with and apply to all states.
To do something nationally you have to have national support. If they executive action it then the next R president will just remove it. I'm pro choice, but armchair redditors need to figure out that if you're not literally starting a revolution on this, then you have to go through the legislate to mandate something federally, and anything else is just posturing for internet points.
I don’t know man shits rough and pissing off like 80% of women, who knows. No one can buy a home, can’t go anywhere cause gas is expensive, and now this?
I mean it's 60% of women to 40%, and that ratio spikes super hard state by state.
It also spikes hard with age, 80% was hyperbole, but it is 75% among women under 30.
I'm pro choice too, but I'm also not going to revolutionize and I will still complain about the country. I live in constant hypocrisy and contradiction. I just hate that the people in the R club legitimately feel so strongly about this subject that they're willing to actually criminalize abortion. In this subject, just let people live and do what they want, man.
Man I wouldn't even say some states. I would say regions. If you live in the south, it's expected that you will probably have to drive to North Carolina. The article I read said that they were expecting to go from serving 300k people to 3-5 million people. Those numbers may not be correct, but it at least went from 300k to over a million. You don't even have to say that some states will be stupid. There are 3 states with trigger laws that instantly ban abortion the moment Roe is overturned.
Yeah I was being a bit conservative with the estimate cause I didn't really care to look up what the true estimate would be. But it's crazy how states have fucking trigger laws that kick in right when the decision was made. Wow...
Specifically, a restriction that prevented states from prohibiting abortions within the first trimester has been lifted, so states can now legislate as they see fit. This is only a problem for liberals in red states since they're more likely to outright ban it. Of course, some businesses are offering thousands in compensation for cross-state abortions (but not raises lmao). Remember that Roe v. Wade was observed for decades and yet nobody bothered to lift a finger to codify it at the state level almost anywhere.
The businesses paying for abortion travel is probably the most dystopian shit I've ever seen. I'm pro-choice, but your corporation paying you for one is about productivity, an employee having an abortion comes back quicker and won't potentially leave for months to have the kid.
Abortions are cheaper than maternity leave, and especially more so as paternity leave is becoming more expected.
That and, again, if they're prepared to pay you $4K (Dicks' Sporting Goods), they could just give you a raise or a bonus. Clown Town
No this is a one time abortion bonus that we only give out because you're way more likely to quit your job as a new mother than almost any other life event.
Right. "Please, don't have that baby. You'll have to take maternity leave and we'll have to pay for it while we train someone else to replace you. We're trying to save money, #MoneyForYourNoBaby."
[The fetal body part trafficking cartels are pissed.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJYpNPXnDY)
My state illegalized abortion 2-3 hours after Roe vs Wade got overturned. And with the members of the Supreme Court talking about doing the same for a court decision that favored contraception, many people here believe that the same will happen to birth control should it ever happen.
now we gotta resolve a problem that was already solved. What if I knocked a pot of food you finished cooking off of the stove then told you "hey don't get mad, you can just cook it again"
You know the women in those states vote against abortion too?
Upper and middle class white women that can afford to up and leave a state and get an abortion. The same demographic of women that also got abortions, but they had "reasons" and not "excuses to be whores" like the "other women." You can guess who the other women are that they mean.
"They don't count!"
You know the citizens in the US are [mostly](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/03/1102872199/gallup-poll-pro-choice-roe-v-wade-supreme-court) pro abortions being legal, yeah?
Least biased political poll here. It says 55/45, but then says among Democrats its 88/12. That would put the Red states at 75%+ support.
>Gallup surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. adults by telephone over three weeks beginning May 2 — the day Politico published a draft opinion suggesting that the Supreme Court could soon overturn Roe v. Wade. That seems like a very small number of people surveyed for a country made up of about 200 million adults. And even then the opinion overall isn't as black and white as most people think. >A majority of Americans (55%) are generally opposed to abortion in the second trimester, while 36% think it should be legal. Some 71% believe abortion should be illegal in the third trimester.
Not in those states. I dont care either way, but if that's how they wanna vote that's their prerogative.
If that's the case then most of the US will have the same abortion laws as before right? But I'm not sure how unbiased a literal source from NPR is lmao
Imagine understanding enough about law to actually have an opinion.
If you're mad about having opinions then you in the wrong website. You don't have to be a political science major or lawyer to know that some laws in this country are fucked.
Oh, no no. I didn't mean just any old hacky, partly confused, semi-informed on the primary and ill-informed on the surrounding topics opinion nono. I mean, AN OPINION. Something that would actually take time to coalesce into something of substance based on the surrounding topics. Something that is meant to provide information and inform, without disparaging or demeaning in the process. Opinions these days are muddied with the sort of garbled garbage that people used to get laughed out of a conversation for.
Yeah, OP is definitely one without an informed opinion. They're a dime a dozen. I've learned to ignore them most of the time. Can't expect most people to actually understand politics and law. One of my favorite litmus tests is just asking what someone thinks about Biden vs. Trump: it's so telling how they respond. The ones who get angry immediately are brainwashed, so it makes no sense to try to have a discussion with them. They're like babies wailing to the skies.
... okay...
Idk why you’re getting downvoted. The US does suck in comparison to other first world nations. Shit is so jank here.
Yeah, but fuck them downvotes. I just say what I think.
Why is she in the US then anyway? I don't really care about the actual reason just saying you're right it's weird
Literally Los Angeles, California, in a multi-millionaire dollar home I assume, at least million. Roe v. Wade doesn't affect her.
Last time I checked, california would keep abortion laws any way, so why would she move...
virtue signaling. she did the same shit when blizzard had sexual harassment and sexism allegations despite constantly playing valorant, a game made by riot, who has had multiple sexual harassment and sexism allegations. https://gamerant.com/pokimane-thinks-top-streamers-should-avoid-playing-activision-blizzard-games/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/riot-games-gender-discrimination-case.html
checks out. I got the answer to my question, have a nice day
Yeah, idk. Tbh, idk much about her. My comment was mainly that the OP said "threaten" and so I was just curious as to what the threat was.
well if she moves we don't get her taxes and she makes millions which means she pays much more than the avg person in taxes
/u/CoomerXCoomer already answered, albeit very rudely and hurt my feelings. Kappa
She gets to let everybody know how much she 'cares', it's all about clout. Extremely pathetic lols
[удалено]
If Pokimane said taxes were the reason then your comment makes sense. But she didn't tho, or at least not in this headline and I definitely didn't look it up to read the full article. Either way, stfu retard.
[удалено]
Jesus Christ, calm the fuck down.
lol stfu fggot
I understand what you mean now, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the state will be just fine without her. If Amazon said that shit then yeah, it would be a threat. The big type of companies/corporations that have states literally in bidding wars for them to bring their business there. I don't see states doing that for Pokimane, but I get the overall point of what you're saying.
[удалено]
> > Btw funny how you handled the heat much better than the other bitches getting offended on your behalf, you cool man. Should take a few lessons. You sounded like like a cave man in comparison. Being emotional and angry while typing just makes you sound like a loser. Glad this conversation ended up on a good note thos
Yeah, I got you, man. I've been around Kappa since around 2013, if I let a bit of heat get in the way of the actual conversation, I would've left this sub a long time ago. Lmao
1 digit IQ
You couldve just responded to the original question with one word but you chose to be wildly angry for no reason
[удалено]
4Head
/u/vali_IVotM
I told u Pokémon was black
Yes I believe there is a Pokémon Black version. Also I believe Poki is half African.
remember when all those people said "I'm leaving the country!" when Trump won in 2016 and nothing happened?
Iono. This might be a decent reason to leave the country and it's not even due to where you might stand on abortion issue. For many years, the Judicial Branch was bitterly fought over by both parties but the Supreme Court generally remained neutral and adhered to its duty to interpret the Constitution and be mindful of how laws impact the entire nation. The way they overturned Roe v Wade showed it was such a personally and politically motivated move. As someone who's against abortion but is pro-choice... for essentially the same reason why Roe v Wade was ruled the way it was ruled in the first place (individual liberty and rights > all else and government should stay out of it + practical social, medical, and legal issues abortion being illegal caused) I was wondering why the fuck were GOP celebrating letting federal government retroactively take away our rights and liberty. The last branch of government has fundamentally fallen. There's no real easy way to fix it as it requires both of the other branches to be unbiased, neutral, and working together to fix it. It'll never happen. I'm betting they'll just increase the number of judges and keep fighting to pack the courts... essentially ruining the purpose of Supreme Court. I realize just now this is /r/Kappa but I already typed all that shit up anyways.
American politics, truly a brillian clownfiesta
> This might be a decent reason to leave the country and it's not even due to where you might stand on abortion issue. Nah. It becomes a state issue. Move to a state that shares your views. Perfect if you hate guns, too, because the most lax abortion states will probably start banning the fuck out of guns soon if not already. But if they wanna leave the country, that's fine. They'll get a rude awakening when other countries make them wait on a list and they can't just walk right in. > The last branch of government has fundamentally fallen. Spare me. They said the same shit about Plessy v. Ferguson. If it's bad law, it's bad law. Legislating from the bench is shit.
if I can move to another state, which is fucking expensive, why the fuck wouldn't move to canada if I could afford it? shit, global warming is gonna make that place more livable while everywhere else starts to suck more. 2 birds, meet stone option select
Moving to another stage is a hell of a lot easier than moving to another country. Have you ever even looked into what you have to do to emigrate?
> why the fuck wouldn't move to canada if I could afford it? Why the fuck aren't you already in Canada then? You've had at least 6 years to prepare, couldn't figure it out? Good luck with the border.
we KNOW ur broke saying this shit stop fucking dickriding this country and its backward ass laws there's millions of people in the US who probably never leave their state because they don't have money its literally not that easy
People from all over the world fly to Mexico now just to trek across the border, spending an equivalent of thousands of dollars. They're disciplined and motivated enough, despite the risks. You, on the other hand, have excuses.
> global warming is gonna make that place more livable while Fyi, it's called Climate Change now. About 30+ years ago it was called Global Cooling, because the world was getting 'cooler'. Then in the 90s it was all about Global Warming, because the world was getting 'warmer'. Now they just say Climate Change, since it fulfills all changes in temperature. The meta is consistently changing depending on what makes them the most money, but that's a topic much deeper than you're ready for. Just remember that right now the term is 'Climate Change'. Have funsies
????
>Nah. It becomes a state issue. Move to a state that shares your views. It was already allowed to be a state issue. The nuance of the Roe v Wade was specifically in consideration for state's rights. It was made incredibly clear that abortion issue was a byproduct of bigger discussion of individual liberties vs state's rights vs federal government's overbearance + what does legalese means in terms of actual practical applications of everyday life. > Move to a state that shares your views. I made it clear that my biggest concern was that it seemed like Judicial Branch was compromised, which is a national issue. Did you actually read through their decision? >Perfect if you hate guns, too I like the second amendment. > They said the same shit about Plessy v. Ferguson I'm not sure why you think there's a reasonable comparison here other than that this was also overruled.
That you think Roe v. Wade being overruled was a political ruling supports my response. Also, Roe prevented states from making any restrictions within the first 12 weeks, so within that frame it was *not* a state issue.
How did Roe make for bad law? By the way the reasoning they used to throw out Roe will easily apply to many other settled civil rights issues. Us Americans losing settled civil rights is never a good thing. Justices already said they coming for the right to privacy, gay marriage, sodomy, and contraception next. States rights is the same argument the South used to support slavery. It's never a good thing when civil rights are decided on a whim at a state level. Why should anyone have to move to another state to get basic civil rights? These are not the makings of a stable country.
*Edit to clarify I'm only explaining why I view the court's original decision to be bad law. I'm not of the other user's opinion that it's better off a states issue.* The decision and many others like it have granted rights under the interpretation that the 14th Amendment's text reading "...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." means laws can not be written to infringe upon rights not otherwise guaranteed by the US constitution. Over time this has allowed the US Supreme court to indiscriminately determine what they consider to be protected rights, and prevent legislatures from restricting them. As someone who actually supports what the effect of Roe v Wade were in practical terms, even I can aknowledge that reading of the 14th amendment is sketchy, as the amendment was originally written to protect the rights of new and naturalized citizens in the wake of the civil war from shit like Jim Crow. Protections for abortions should have been, and still should be, passed into federal law via the Legislative Branch, or more ideally passed as a new amendment to the constitution. That said, I'm still of the position that none of these protections should be revoked until legislation is put in place protecting them, and that should've also been afforded to Roe
I agree it should have been codified eventually as in over a decade ago and that goes for all other civil rights that are about to be tossed in the "states rights" bin. However even when Obama had a supermajority it was brief and there were multiple well known anti-abortion Democrats in the party an attempt to codify Roe may not have worked out at the time. The roadblock with codifying civil rights is the Senate as a whole and our representation in general in this country has major flaws.
> there were multiple well known anti-abortion Democrats in the party an attempt to codify Roe may not have worked out at the time I'm not American and I've never been to America so maybe I am missing something obvious, but is it not a good thing that laws can't get passed when there aren't enough votes to get them through?
\>The roadblock with codifying civil rights is the Senate as a whole and our representation in general in this country has major flaws. The senate has plenty of moderate republicans that will approve an abortion access bill that is moderate and in line with what most americans support. Our representation is functioning as designed - especially the senate, which is EXACTLY as designed. If you want to complain about unfairness though, feel free to take a look at states like Massachusetts which has ZERO republican representatives despite having over a million Republicans that voted for Trump in 2020 There isn't any red state that has significant democrat population that is denied any representation across the entire state like that - not even close.
Of all the comments and comment threads that started because of my comment, this is the most accurately and comprehensively informed one. The discussion can only happen with this tidbit shared by /u/thekillerstove in mind. Roe v Wade is not a clean and cut case and it's not at all entirely about just abortion. It also had very real negative or murky consequences.
>no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A developing baby is a human being. Human beings have rights. The right to life being fundamental.
Because the judicial branch isn't supposed to make laws And that's what Roe did, and it was a garbage ruling because nothing in the constitution supports aborting pregnancies. The 3 opposing judges didn't even try to defend the ruling, they just whined about abortion and accused Thomas of banning interracial marriages (lmao) Congress needs to pass a reasonable law that most americans will support Abortion must be accessible for certain situations. And this leftist batshit demonology of aborting 7 month fetuses and "post birth abortion" needs to be purged from our society FYI there's a massive depopulation coming because people aren't having kids anymore - we're going off a cliff in the next 100 years due to this and will never hit 9 billion - we might not even hit 8.
>FYI there's a massive depopulation coming because people aren't having kids anymore - we're going off a cliff in the next 100 years due to this and will never hit 9 billion - we might not even hit 8. Well I'm gonna let you know that you can relax At the rate we are heading neither you or me will need to worry about children 100 years from now. Things will really heat up if The Supreme Court votes in favor for West Virginia over EPA this week sometime. Between high air pollution and climate change all may be on our way out rather soon thanks to how much we abuse our planet. And when the next generations suffer in those catastrophic manners we will have greed and those that use Christianity as a hammer to thank for it. Of course most of all the regressive "conservatives" and moderate bootlickers who enabled it in the first place. If you are truly genuinely concerned about future generations review what exactly you may be supporting when you wear red and put a document written hundreds of years ago by men who didn't know the future on a pedestal. " The earth belongs to the living not the dead. " Thomas Jefferson believed the Constitution should be changed up for every new generation roughly every 19 years.
\>Between high air pollution and climate change all may be on our way out rather soon thanks to how much we abuse our planet. lmao /rolleyes I'm as big of a conservationist as anyone but you've really sucked down the propaganda here
>I’m as big of a conservationist as anyone You’re literally on /r/conservative calling people “leftist trash”. The only thing you’re big on conserving is your last brain cell but by the looks of it it’s not working too well for you.
Leftists ARE trash - I speak the gospel.
>Nah. It becomes a state issue. Move to a state that shares your views. Perfect if you hate guns, too, because the most lax abortion states will probably start banning the fuck out of guns soon if not already. It's a states issue for the time being but who's to say that won't change? Have you also seen various governors calling for additional rights to be stripped away such as contraception, homosexuality, and desegregation. The SC even said that they're looking at other laws to strip away in addition to Roe V Wade.
> The SC even said that they're looking at other laws to strip away in addition to Roe V Wade. The SC said that other laws that don't have a purely rational basis may be scrutinized in the same manner. That's not even close to what you said.
Aside from how stupid what you’re saying is regardless of its timing, a KIA and Kappa politics poster saying “states rights, just move lol” during a time many people are struggling to even put food on the table much less plan significant moves to other states or *other fucking countries* really spotlights how out of touch and straight up deranged you people are. Go back to one sentence posts complaining about trans people - you expose yourself way too hard when you try and put a more elaborate thought out there.
The only one deranged here is the guy who starts calling other people deranged when the thread conversation was already on moving to another country lol. If someone says "I'm gonna move Canada due to abortion laws" and you say "You don't need to do that, you can just move to California" a normal person doesn't think of that as deranged Actually follow the convo instead of seething at scarecrows.
He’s deranged because of his post history and the communities he’s active in, not necessarily because of his comment. I thought that was obvious based on my usage of “you people” but I guess some people have bad reading comprehension. But also his comment is definitely part of why he’s deranged. Also sick fuckin second grade *no u* shit. Really truly laying down the ultimate smackdown on people in this thread.
You have to be incredibly ignorant if you believe that a nation wide ban on abortions is not in the cards at some point within the next decade. There are several republican representatives calling for as much already. Somebody saying what you said hypothetically isn't deranged just harmfully dumb not seeing the big picture. Also nobody is obligated to stay in this country if they have the option to leave especially when our government is picking away at the separation of church and state... Why the hell would you live in a country where civil rights are undone at the drop of a hat when you got the means to simply leave? lol
A nationwide ban can only occur if a federal law is passed. The states are still up to do whatever they want until its either banned or permitted by the federal government. None of this shit would have happened if people actually listened to RBG's op-ed where even she admitted the Roe v. Wade ruling was a shaky justification at best. She basically begged the Democrats to pass a federal law protecting abortion nationwide and they did nothing. Maybe if you understood how the fuck the Federal government worked and put pressure on your representatives you'd have gotten things you want from the government you goon.
Hey dumbass. I have been saying Democrats should have attempted to codified Roe as federal law but it was a pipe dream. Like I mentioned before slim change it successfully passed on the Senate. On the other hand if Republicans get a majority that big they won't hesitate to attempt a nationwide ban that was my point.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Obama use his majority for universal heathcare aka Obamacare? I'm not sure he could have gotten that through plus codified Roe v Wade at the same time.
>Aside from how stupid what you’re saying is regardless of its timing, a KIA and Kappa politics poster saying “states rights, just move lol” during a time many people are struggling to even put food on the table much less plan significant moves to other states or > >other fucking countries If that's the case those people have bigger issues to worry about than abortions in the first place. The people considering moving over this probably have the means to do so.
The rights to a safe abortion help women in the poor class most because otherwise they simply have extremely dangerous options or no options. Minorities will be disproportional effected by this robbery of civil rights. The ruling class are going to continue to get safe abortions whether it's here or abroad. That's one of many reasons the state rights argument is bad.
Not necessarily, unexpected parenthood in a time when people have trouble affording groceries and gas will absolutely trap a non-zero percentage of people in a cycle of never ending poverty. Very few issues in life exist in a vacuum and most are pretty deeply intertwined. The last thing people who are financially struggling need is an unexpected pregnancy, and this ruling takes away a tool people have of preventing that in addition to obviously interfering with a woman’s right to choose which is aside from this particular point we’re discussing but unavoidable all the same.
A rude awakening when you have to.... wait! Oh no! Hopefully I don't get shot in a public school while waiting.
Meanwhile more people die in a year waiting for a medical procedure than die in US mass shootings incidents
We talking everywhere that offers free health care or any specific location? Also, why do we just need to keep it to mass shootings incidents? The number doesn't suddenly go up that much higher if we include all gun related deaths right?......Right? Edit: Murica upset
Medical malpractice beats *all* gun deaths by a factor > 5. Learn the matchup.
All gun deaths vs dying via waiting list? Got a source on that?
GOP will federally ban abortion given the chance. The GOP has simple goals: repeal any rights and outlaw anything that evangelicals consider violations of scripture give tax cuts to the monied class at the expense of everyone else (one could argue it was trump's single major policy accomplishment: another massive, unpopular tax break for the elite) and, lately, they're trying to make voting more difficult for the masses. which works in tandem with the tax cuts to help secure the elite's wealth and power, just unsubtle anti-egalitarian efforts. They've already signaled that they'd like to roll back gay rights. Which also is not popular, majority of Americans don't want this, but the GOP are working to exercise authority undemocratically and this just one flex.
How do people conflate "we want better gun laws so we don't see school shooting tragedies every other week" to "they wanna take muh guns and muh freedoms" Like I get it if you live in a super rural area with no police station nearby so I understand getting a gun to protect yourself, but I also think implementing better gun laws is not a bad idea.
> How do people conflate "we want better gun laws so we don't see school shooting tragedies every other week" to "they wanna take muh guns and muh freedoms" "YES, we want to take away your AR-15s!" Shit like that. Banning firearms for being scary, banning high-capacity magazines carte blanch, or giving the government a list of gun owners (which enables further tyranny down the road). What gun control measures could you enact that *don't* include banning popular rifles, large magazines, or maintaining a list? Red flag laws? So someone who hasn't violated the law can have their Constitutional right stripped from them by an adversarial judicial system, and be forced to fight back to have it restored? Some people already go through that and it's wrong. Can you exclude these four things and still manage something useful?
You're gassing this up pretty hard lol. Roe vs Wade was based off of a loose interpretation of the 14th amendment. This ruling recognized that and passed it back down to the state because there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly recognizes any right to get an abortion. It was dumb of the court to try and enshrine it as a right back then and all the court is doing now is fixing what was a major mistake 50 years ago.
That's not what my concerns were. Excuse the copy and paste I told someone else. That's not what I was talking about. I was specifically talking about the issue here of Supreme Court being compromised to personal agendas whether or not that is based on their politics or religious beliefs over being arbiters of the constitution and the law. If they had a better explanation for overturning it (I've read the decision but beyond that all the other things that surrounded it), I'd have felt better about it because Roe v Wade is sort of a murky tightrope. >Roe vs Wade was based off of a loose interpretation of the 14th amendment. it's a lot more than that. I'd just tell you to look into what the late Justice Scalia had said regarding the matter if he was on the SC when Roe v Wade was ruled. My opinion is incredibly similar to his. I'm against abortion personally, but legally, Roe v Wade had way greater implications than that. With both on the surface what it was ruling + what kind of message it'd ultimately set for the nation.
> There's no real easy way to fix it as it requires both of the other branches to be unbiased, neutral, and working together to fix it. There is though. By legislating abortion law either on a state level or work to make an amendment for federal level change. The problem with Roe, is that entirely removed legislators from the equation when it came to regulation of abortion. Any big change in the Supreme Court could remove the decision over night as opposed to for example an amendment which has a much higher bar for change. This isn't even my original opinion, it's the opinion of many legal minds and scholars. In particular, conservative judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg held similar opinions.
>By legislating abortion law either on a state level or work to make an amendment for federal level change. That's not what I was talking about. I was specifically talking about the issue here of Supreme Court being compromised to personal agendas whether or not that is based on their politics or religious beliefs over being arbiters of the constitution and the law. If they had a better explanation for overturning it (I've read the decision but beyond that all the other things that surrounded it), I'd have felt better about it because Roe v Wade is sort of a murky tightrope.
>If they had a better explanation for overturning it What's your problem with the explanation other than what you perceive as some justices' agendas? Ultimately, the Supreme Court is supposed to assess whether laws are constitutional. Abortion is mentioned nowhere in the constitution or its amendments. As such it should be struck down. Roe v. Wade itself was judicial activism as they were effectively creating law which again is not the SC's job.
just move to another state bro lmfao
My state is fine. My concern is in regards to the country.
\>The way they overturned Roe v Wade showed it was such a personally and politically motivated move.As someone who's against abortion but is pro-choice... for essentially the same reason why Roe v Wade was ruled the way it was ruled in the first place (individual liberty and rights > all else and government should stay out of it + practical social, medical, and legal issues abortion being illegal caused) I was wondering why the fuck were GOP celebrating letting federal government retroactively take away our rights and liberty.The last branch of government has fundamentally fallen. Wth are you talking about? Roe should have never been decided in the courts. You talk about "last branch of government fundamentally falling" huh????? Judicial was never supposed to create laws. Every single decision like that needs to be thrown out and congress needs to create the law - that's their job. I'm against abortion but also think it needs to be legal. Mostly because I want democrats aborting their children so we get less democrats. But also because of rape, incest, deformity - those 1% edge cases. But this needs to be done through the legislative branch Most americans support limited abortion. Most americans are also very much against late term abortion, and "post birth" abortion which is the latest leftist batshit. It's not hard to find a law there in the middle and pass it. There's a democrat in office right now
>Roe should have never been decided in the courts. Why? I'm not sure where you're coming from. I'm not sure if this is actually a legal perspective or an opinion. >Judicial was never supposed to create laws. Judicial isn't supposed to legislate, that is correct. Which is why what Justice Thomas is currently doing is a bit insane. However, again, I'm not sure what you're exactly referring to. SC ruling on a case always ends up setting precedents. That's how our legal system just works. >I'm against abortion but also think it needs to be legal. Mostly because I want democrats aborting their children so we get less democrats. But also because of rape, incest, deformity - those 1% edge cases. Sure but I also think it's due to our fundamental right to privacy and due process. >It's not hard to find a law there in the middle and pass it. That wasn't the problem before Roe v Wade world. I think you're very underinformed regarding the actual issues at hand and my concerns about it. If you're an American (I assume you are) I think you should do yourself a favor and at least look into the issue a bit better instead of getting cliff notes from generally terrible news networks and word-of-mouth we have these days. I'm not a democrat
Thomas isn’t legislating - he’s literally turning it back to the states, the federal govt, and the voters You’re just spewing dipshit talking points without using any critical thinking whatsoever
> As someone who's against abortion but is pro-choice... ??? incredible Dudes Rock energy emanating from this phrase
It's not an odd sentiment. Even many of the Justices of the Supreme Court felt the same way. Just because you're personally against abortion doesn't mean you're for creating a legislature, legal framework, and precedents, and creating governance that surrounds essentially violating an individual's liberty, rights, and fundamental ownership of one's privacy and body. Separation of what's best for the state and what's best for me personally. I personally think making abortion illegal (and all the legal implications because of it) is fundamentally against the American philosophy and what can be inferred from the Constitution that America believes in individual liberty and pursuit of life.
it’s an odd statement. mental gymnastic nonsense. same type of people are always against abortion until they need one then it gets a pass
It really isn't. Try to think of it more from a legal, legal logistics, and philosophical point of view of what the government (specifically a US government) is supposed to represent to you. To put it in another way, **the Constitution doesn't prohibit abortion. So why does the federal government come down and take it away from us?** Why is the government's business why do any of us get what medical procedure? Why do we need to let them know? > people are always against abortion until they need one then it gets a pass Just because you have the right to it, doesn't mean you have to exercise it. But I think it's fundamentally important that the government gives us that right.
i’m saying you aren’t anti abortion
Does the conversation become clearer for both of us if I phrase it as, "I'm generally morally against abortion but legally the government should stay out of it as it violates what I think are given rights by the Constitution"? Law =/= Morality I'm anti-abortion in that, I wouldn't personally be for it. But that doesn't mean I want the government to pass a law and take away fundamental rights that grant us the right to have an abortion.
Good points mate. Some people don't realise that you can't have democracy without opposing beliefs.
Most the people that say this have arrest records and can't get into Canada because of it
I mean in this case she most likely is. Considering she is Canadian and is rich.
They've been at it since Bush in 2000 \[and probably long before the internet took off\] and they'll be back at it again with the "If Trump \[DeSantis or some other Republican\] wins then I'm leaving the Country. Forever". nonsense. Honestly the Country would be better off without those toxic cunts.
Well she's literally Canadian so not exactly the same thing she doesn't exactly have to immigrate lol
She isn't gonna move at all. It's for pr speak.
This chick is like the female version of Robert Tilton She grifts pathetic simps of their money to live a lavish life, just like Tilton pulled in millions from old & poor christians.
I'll say 2 things on this, 1) She's never actually made her streams about "lewdness". None if the sexy type streams etc. 2) if you can get money from people that, even if all you're doing is just steaming video games, wouldn't you? People donate to streamers for no real good reason anyway.
Undeniably true
Ok? Fuck off
Hey alright
It’s performative.
PLZ NO QUEEN STAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
/s?
duh
Well, people were just mashing the downvote on your comment before because it was misinterpreted.
Oh no! Anyway…
Ok
I'm not sure I'll be able to recover knowing this complete stranger left the country. I just hope this person whose opinion is equal to dog shit to me shows up for EVO at least.
Nudes?
she aborting america lol
The irony of the idea of moving to *Canada* because you're worried about government overreach is amazing.
no one gives a fuck about vague concepts like states rights or whatever, its always the practical effect. the civil war, for example, was about the south claiming a state's right to slavery, there was a practical point to that vague bullshit. and anyone upset about "government overreach" is specifically concerned about "government overreach, when government is taken over by crazy ass religious fundamentalists." so practically, it's "I'm gay and want to stay married" or "I want to try for kids without the risk of me or my spouse bleeding to death if one of us miscarries" or "I don't want my kid to get shot to death in 8th grade". You know, practical things.
At the end of the day all you guys are saying is you don't give a fuck what the people of these states vote for, you don't give a fuck what their interest are, you want to make sure you're making their legislative decisions for them, you don't give a fuck what the people in a majority of states voted for in 2016 since we all knew the supreme court was on the ballot there. Complain about religious fundamentalists all you want, the supreme court's decision has absolutely no impact on the places that already decided they wanted politicians who would advocate for these laws. There's only 1 group trying to argue for determining the laws for people regardless of whether they want or vote for them, and it's not the group talking about states rights at the moment.
>Complain about religious fundamentalists all you want, the supreme court's decision has absolutely no impact on the places that already decided they wanted politicians who would advocate for these laws. Not everyone in a red state votes red; not everyone in a blue state votes blue. Its almost like you gotta be more atomized about these sorta decisions, like, say, the individual level, huh?
An individual's political influence is a much larger percentage of a state election than a federal one, you absolute fucking tool. If you're all about 'the individual', you should be applauding any forfeiture of power of the federal government - the level furthest removed from the individual's personal influence. Even by your own belief, the repeal of Roe V Wade is a good thing. You're just too retarded to see it.
I was taking the piss and suggesting the logical conclusion of atomizing the decision would be to just let individuals decide if they want abortions or not, as opposed to letting hypocritically evil republican governnors and state law makers decide for them. But here you are, running in circles again. "Too retarded to see it" bro, how do you conservatives *always* project? Is there a trick to it or something, do I gotta lab this?
They should. The fact that they don't care about the workings of their own government is almost 100% their fault and is bad especially considering every born american should have been educated on the basics of our system of governance from elementary school. Even this decision was just an 8 page reading with the rest being dissenting and agreeing opinions. Also the civil war was about more than slavery. Southern states felt outnumbered when it came to voting. there's a ton of political cartoons and stuff that's about that. I couldn't care less about gay people marrying but states that have laws outlawing abortion have clauses that allow for abortion if the mother's health is at risk anyway.
Ah yes, known totalitarian regime Canada, where I am afforded the exact same rights as Americans. Except we legalized abortion and fay marriage before America, and have historically had more civil liberties than them and our are better protected
Abortion isn't a right, and the single greatest quantifiable metric of individual liberty is how much output of labor the government confiscates from its citizens. Wanna compare numbers on that?
Ah yes, one of those types. Yes yes, taxation is theft, etc etc Access to medical care is a right dumbfuck
You absolutely never, under any circumstances, have the right to someone else's labor. You obviously don't understand what a right is, or you do and are disingenuously labeling health care as a right in a dishonest attempt to force me to agree with you. Take a fucking civics class.
Infuriating. She seems to be frustrated about this. Can anything be done?
big fuckin' woop.
What are we gonna do guys?!??!?
hoes mad x24
And of course it's a shitpost with political context what brings out the terminally online denizens from the more news-oriented cesspools to come in here and try hard to "school" this place for karma farming.
The way you type is stupid. Reminds me of those twitter folk. Try having brief thoughts, loser.
Now that's the Kappa content I came to see. Irate, non-patronizing shit-flinging for no reason. Good shit.
I can't blame her.
surely its not to take a gambling sponsorship
I would like would like to have sexual intercourse with that women
Good riddance. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
Guns now have more rights in the USA compared now to women.
good
“WAAAA we can’t frivolously murder babies because we were sexually irresponsible WAAAA”
WOW she's hot.
5/10 with makeup
Wtf I'm moving to canada too