Would and could we have a debate nicely?

[jimmy2]

In coming generations will abortion be looked like slavery? Both were and are so nasty for certain sections of life when God says all life is equal. It only at the Tower of Babel that we got all scattered. What say you?

[MCheetah]

No, because you're trying to conflate objective misery onto people burdened with being slaves versus subjective morality based on religion. Not everyone believes in Christianity and not everyone is pro-life, and to argue the other side is "wrong" for not being that, makes the arguer a hypocrite. I don't like the pro-life argument anyway and wrote my MyTake explaining why.

As for the leak being an issue? I WOULD say it's a bad thing, but Americans just let election fraud happen right before their eyes in 2020; everything else is irrelevant after that. Democracy is 100% dead in America from here on out and nothing matters anymore.

[Dargil]

Not sure what to debate. But yes, slavery, abortion and our roles in eradicating Native Americans are heinous.

[Guy13]

Nope, slaves are not killed.. Babies in the womb with a formed genetic code and beating heart 💗 is murder. NOT comparable.
—And in fact, lots of ‘slaves’ lives are improved. I’ve met first generation of no-slave individuals. In fact their parents worked land…were provided income…residences…kids schooled in private school like the farm owners’ kids. It was a chosen situation.
They come to family reunions. One of the kids finished a very well known and held in high esteem southern university. The public act like these people were forced into their chosen advantaged Business arrangement.

[slatyb]

No, it won't. The world is becoming increasingly secular and will continue to do so. Souls aren't real and a fetus is not a baby.

[jshm2]

What sort of dimwit tries to compare abortion and slavery? You, apparently.

[jimmy2]

I talking to about 5 generation from now

[joeldalton]

Roe v. wade is not the issue. The issue is LITERALLY in the first time in SCOTUS history a judgement was leaked before it was announced. That is a grave issue.

[jimmy2]

You so right

[goaded]

It's also the first time a settled law will be overturned by five justices that obtained fewer than 60 votes for confirmation in the senate. Two of which apparently lied under oath to the senate even to get more than 50.

[joeldalton]

@goaded lmao. If that helps you sleep better, I’m glad you know that trivia.

[goaded]

So you're fine with a Supreme Court containing perjurers. Of course you are, they're your team.

[joeldalton]

@goaded enjoy your daily dose of copium.

[goaded]

You're so clever.

[joeldalton]

@goaded and you’re so dull.

[goaded]

The truth often is. Lies are much more fun, aren't they?

[joeldalton]

@goaded I mean I guess if you fall for propaganda it can feel like truth. But it isn't at the end of the day.

[goaded]

See, wasn't that lie much more fun than the truth?

[joeldalton]

@goaded Tell me about the ghost of Kiev again, pew pew. Or how your vaccine stops the spread of covid.

[goaded]

Now we're on to deflecting from your current crop of lies. Isn't this fun? Much more fun than the truth that Republicans are dismantling the country.

[joeldalton]

@goaded bahahahaha. Boy that was a whopper you just laid out.

[goaded]

And the lies keep coming. Five Republican justices who were confirmed with maybe 20 Democratic votes between them are coming for a decision made 50 years ago by 7 of 9 justices who were confirmed with roughly that many votes against them in total. You know, back when Senators and Judges took their oaths seriously.

Who do you think leaked the draft, anyway?

[joeldalton]

@goaded Oh we're back to your autistic confirmation vote example, as if it matters? Considering the dem politicians had their prepared responses out within minutes, and pro RvW websites were registered days ago, I'm not quite sure who could have done the leak. Considering that the democrats are poised to be shellacked in November and abortion always get you mouth frothing libs all fired up, I'm not quite sure who could have done the leak.

But be assured the FBI will never investigate.

[goaded]

Of course having a partisan supreme court matters.

[joeldalton]

@goaded Ah, so you're just angry your side isn't in charge. Yawn. seethe about it.

[goaded]

No. Wrong as usual. I'm angry that Republicans have decided that democracy isn't something they're interested in any more. They just want the power. There's a reason no SCOTUS nominee has said they want to overturn Roe in the last 40 years; it's extremely popular. So, instead, they just ignore their oaths to tell the truth.

[joeldalton]

@goaded Wait, they're not interested in democracy because what now? Because the SCOTUS believes it's up to the voters in each state to decide the abortion laws? How is that anti democracy, exactly? Or is this more bullshit out of your idiotic brain?

[goaded]

This SCOTUS, stacked with lying partisans, appears to believe that. Despite the fact that two of them lied under oath that they saw Roe as settled law, not something to be overturned at the first opportunity.

Of course, they can't be impeached, because the Republicans in the senate will simply pretend to see nothing wrong with that.

[joeldalton]

@goaded Ah, so you have no way of demonstrating that giving the decision to the voters in the states undermines democracy. Thanks for playing. Heads up, this is the time for you to take your L and act like a man and move on.

[goaded]

Oh, you've moved on to stage three, declare victory and hope I stop pointing out that the current SCOTUS is the only SCOTUS in history to have five justices that weren't confirmed by senators representing the majority of Americans. Just by partisan Republicans, and only because they were willing to lie under oath, specifically about Roe. And that Republicans won't hold them responsible for those lies because they only care about party above country.

[joeldalton]

@goaded I knew you couldn’t take an L like a man.

[goaded]

You'll never admit that Republicans are breaking the country, because you like it, don't you? All those fun lies! All those ways to get around the intent of the founding fathers and the constitution so you can act against the majority of the country's wishes. All the while shouting that the Democrats are the ones doing it. So much fun! So many lies! You get to own the libs! So much more fun than running a country for the benefit of the people.

[joeldalton]

@goaded There’s nothing to admit because you’ve given 0 examples. You screeching about it doesn’t make it so.

[goaded]

You lying about it doesn't, either. A party that does nothing positive but concentrates only on gaining undemocratic power and blocking the other party is anti-democratic. Especially one that encourages the big lie.

[joeldalton]

@goaded What's undemocratic about states voting on their own abortion laws?

[goaded]

What's democratic about abandoning 200 years of democratic norms and refusing to do what every other minority party has done, like consider nominees for SCOTUS? Or lying about the results of an election? Or lying under oath so that you can go on to overturn a law supported by 70% of Americans? Or blocking a president's nominees for no reason?

[joeldalton]

@goaded What is undemocratic about letting the voters in the respective states decide whether abortion should be legal or not?

[goaded]

What's undemocratic about letting the voters in the respective states vote on whether slavery should be legal or not? Federal law has said what is legal or otherwise regarding abortion for the last 50 years.

A minority party has stolen power they weren't entitled to. Their nominees lied under oath. They are overturning what they said was settled law. They have broken their oaths of office, while claiming to be upholding the constitution they swore those oaths to uphold. And many of them are implicated in an insurrection against the lawful government.

That's undemocratic.

[joeldalton]

@goaded You've typed a lot of words without actually telling me how it's undemocratic to allow the citizens of the respective states vote on whether abortion is legal or not.

[goaded]

And you didn't bother reading them. The law says that it's a woman's right.

That law would not be at risk of being overturned if the "justices" that want to do so hadn't lied under oath. Do you want members of the supreme court to be perjurers? Of course you do, because you're not really interested in the country or constitution.

[joeldalton]

@goaded Alito starts his opinion in Dobbs by heavily criticizing Roe v. Wade and its successor Planned Parenthood v. Casey. According to Alito, the court's holding in Roe has unclear roots in the Constitution. The court must overturn Roe, Alito argues, because "[t]he Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. . . including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

According to Alito's reasoning, Roe was "remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text." Alito notes that Roe rests not on any single constitutional provision, but on five: the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments.

However, because the majorities in Roe and Casey relied largely on the 14th Amendment, Alito spends a lot of time criticizing their interpretations of the unenumerated rights granted by "substantive due process," which the Supreme Court has occasionally found in the 14th Amendment in cases dating back to at least the mid-20th century.

[goaded]

So? Does that mean that it was OK for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to pretend they didn't agree with Alito during their confirmation hearings? Why are they so keen to take away rights that have been established for two generations? Why do they not respect the seven justices who decided it in the first place, five of whom were Republican nominees?

Nice cut and paste from here, by the way: www.findlaw.com/.../

[joeldalton]

@goaded Your poll means literally nothing considering you dipshits have conflated Roe V. Wade being overturned as "100% of abortions in America are now illegal".

[goaded]

It's not *my* poll, it's Fox News'. Going back to your original point, there's a good argument to be had that says a RWNJ leaked the judgement so that the five justices would be trapped into keeping to the same votes or look weak. Maybe one or two were unconvinced.

[joeldalton]

@goaded There's a better argument to be had that a lefty lunatic leaked the judgement so that it'd fire up the democrat base since they're looking at a bloodbath in November. Plus a good distraction from the 60k documents Pfizer just released.

[goaded]

So, they leaked it knowing it would probably force it to pass? Doubtful. Especially as the decision was due to come out next month anyway. Strangely, since someone pointed out that Ginni Thomas is a likely contender for leaker, right-wing news has moved away from the leaker to "states' rights", just like you did.

I'm going to regret this, but which "just released" Pfizer documents? The ones from the beginning of March, two months ago? This is a distraction from two month old news? Or is it more likely you're bringing that up as a distraction?

[joeldalton]

@goaded Pfizer docs released just yesterday, dipshit. Of course CNN didn’t reset your programming to include being aware of it. I didn’t pivot at all, both the leaker and the state’s rights issue is important. Always has been. But I have seen at least one of your lefty sites claim that this isn’t the first leak from scotus, so nothing to see here.

But I’ll ask one more time, to see if you can take your L like a man…how does citizens of a state being able to have their legislators vote on abortion undermine democracy?

[goaded]

Well, what do they say that's different to the ones released over the last six months?

Show me "at least one of your lefty sites claim that this isn’t the first leak from scotus, so nothing to see here.", because you're not above making this stuff up.

You're onto a real winner with that line of questioning, you think. It's undemocratic because it's voting to take away an established right. (Established, by the way, by five Republican nominated and two Democratic nominated justices, one of each dissenting.) And the fact that these five current justices all lied or demurred about their intent during their confirmation hearings means they should never have been on the bench, which more than 40% of senators realised at the time. The only reason the last three were confirmed was because McConnell changed the rules.

[joeldalton]

@goaded I checked the constitution twice. Nothing about abortion in there. Good try.

[joeldalton]

www.nbcnews.com/.../abortion-opinion-leak-unprecedented-not-supreme-court-first-rcna27130

[goaded]

Aw, look, @joeldalton knows better than a real SCOTUS! (One without Manchurian justices put on the bench for one reason only, to overturn Roe.)

[joeldalton]

@goaded I’ll wait for you to find it.

[goaded]

So, in your mind this means "nothing to see here":
"The Supreme Court has been vexed by leaks in the past, but Monday's disclosure of a majority draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade dwarfs any that have come before, experts said. "

And this is them disagreeing with you:
"there haven't been any known leaks of draft majority opinions"

[joeldalton]

@goaded That’s NBC claiming it’s no big deal in their headline. Just like i said.

[goaded]

Do you know what "unprecedented" means?

[joeldalton]

@goaded I know “not a Supreme Court first” means.

[goaded]

Well done. Then look up unprecedented and read the whole article. (By the way, it gives several examples of judgements leaked before they were announced, just not one that wasn't yet finalised.)

[BarryLiverstone]

It’s rare to have a nice discussion on gag. Normally personal attacks are issued.

[goaded]

Possibly not while people insist on forcing their religious beliefs onto other people.

[OddBeMe]

No. Because fetuses aren’t slaves.