Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[NEDenver]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Not always. 

But sometimes.  And that's what the Republicans are upset about.  All of it.  Wedding cakes, civil rights, everything.  They're put upon and now they're angry and have been told they don't have to take it anymore, so they're coming for us.

[BootmanLA]

On 7/29/2022 at 4:03 PM, TotalTop said:

That is some nice revisionist history. It did not really happen this way and the northern states at one time had slaves and they profited from slavery.

[deleted bullshit Youtube video from some cheapo knockoff "TED-like but NOT TED event"]

It is true that MANY DECADES before the Civil War, there were some slaves in the Northern states. Let's look at the numbers, shall we, since we have the census data for every decade starting with 1790.

In that first census, there were zero slaves in Massachusetts (which then included Maine). There were 475,327 persons in Massachusetts (more than any state except Virginia). There were 16 slaves in Vermont, 158 in New Hampshire, 948 in Rhode Island. In total, in that first census, for states above the Mason-Dixon line, there were 49,257 slaves out of a total of 2,027,248 persons, so roughly 2.4% of the population north of the Mason-Dixon line was a slave.

By contrast, none of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line had fewer than 12,430 slaves (Kentucky, which was sparsely settled at that point). The 49K slaves in the entire northern US pales in comparison with South Carolina (107,094 slaves), North Carolina (100,572 slaves), Maryland (103,036 slaves), or Virginia (a whopping 292,627 slaves). All told, there were 645,023 slaves in the six southern states out of a total population there of 1,866,387 people. In other words, 34.5% of all persons in the six southern states were enslaved.

Let's leap ahead to the eve of the Civil War, to 1860. In that year, there were a grand total of 18 slaves in New Jersey and 1,798 in Delaware. Those were the only states of the original 13 where slavery was still legal, and only tangentially so (the reason numbers are so low). That's a total of 1,816 slaves in the northern states, out of 18,912,763 persons, or roughly one in every 200,000 people.

In the slaveholding (that is, southern) states, there were 3,948,713 slaves among a total of 12,128,077 persons, or 32.5%.

Now, as to making money off slaves: it's true that for a time, the slave trade flourished in both northern and southern ports, and banks in the north made a profit financing the purchase of ships and their human cargo. But the importation of slaves was illegal after 1808, or in other words, for more than 50 years before the Civil War. Thereafter, northern banks continued to profit by financing land purchases, slave acquisitions, and agricultural pursuits, that's true. But that enriched, as always, the wealthy banker class and not the average Northerner. And it's worth noting that by 1860, a lot of that finance had moved south, to New Orleans and Charleston and other southern port cities. 

In other words the north had largely purged itself of the limited stain of slavery those states had incurred by the founding of the country. The South? Not one bit. Zero. Nada. Pretending you know something about history when you display this sort of ignorance of what the actual numbers show only betrays one's ignorance.

[BootmanLA]

On 7/29/2022 at 3:57 PM, TotalTop said:

Many women do use abortion as or instead of the many various types and combinations of birth control, they have a need to be a cum dump or bred and then are shocked when they become pregnant. 

"Many"? Please cite an authoritative source for this adjective. My description for this characterization is "bullshit".

On 7/29/2022 at 3:57 PM, TotalTop said:

I personally know women who have had ten or eleven abortions, they had access to condoms and other contraceptives but made the personal choice not to use any.

I'm not calling you a liar but it sounds to me like you hang out with a rather seedy crowd, if that's actually true.

On 7/29/2022 at 3:57 PM, TotalTop said:

If abortion is legal it should only be done in the very first trimester, as anything else is infanticide, and akin to how in Asian countries women use abortion as birth control or kill the infant after he or she is born.  This also happens in abortion clinics in the USA. 

Again: please cite an authoritative source for your bullshit claim that "kill[ing] the infant after he or she is born" occurs in abortion clinics in the USA. "Hi, I just had this baby, and I meant to get an abortion but forgot. Can you take care of killing it for me? Kthanksbye"

On 7/29/2022 at 3:57 PM, TotalTop said:

Abortion is not safe, the fetus/almost developed baby dies, and many women who had supposedly "safe and legal" abortions have died.  I am only for abortion in the cases of rape/incest, or in the super rare condition that the mother's life is in danger and a c section cannot be performed.

It's true that the fetus dies. The rest of this paragraph is again fertilizer-quality bullshit. Prior to the horrible Dobbs decision, two-thirds of abortions took place in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and 88% took place in the first 12 weeks. Others have already pointed out that abortion in the first trimester has a much lower complication and much lower fatality rate than pregnancy, so I'll leave aside your false statement about safety otherwise.

I will note, however, that at 12 weeks - less than a trimester - a baby is not "almost developed". If they were, such babies could be saved in a miscarriage in a neonatal care unit. As it is, the youngest developed fetus to survive a premature delivery was 21 weeks, 1 day along. Anything before that, by definition, the baby is not "almost developed". 

More importantly, by that point, nobody's using abortion as casual birth control. A woman who has gone 20 weeks into pregnancy is almost guaranteed to want the child, but tragically, abortion is sometimes the safer and saner option. Abortions at this stage almost always involve something like severe fetal abnormalities that, IF the fetus survives to delivery, will almost certain end in a painful death. Sometimes the abortion is to remove a fetus that is already dying and has no chance of survival, and removing it from the mother is her only chance at survival as well.

The point ought to be obvious: these are decisions that a woman should make, in consultation with her health care providers, and what you or I or anyone else thinks about it really shouldn't matter one fucking bit.

Now, would I agree by the third trimester, absent such a clear reason, abortion shouldn't be permitted? I could be persuaded. But the thing is, under Roe and Casey, states could ALREADY prohibit such abortions, because they're past the point of viability. What the Supreme Court said in Dobbs is, in essence, a state can prohibit all those circumstances you say you'd support a right to abortion in - that states can, in fact, prohibit it entirely, even to save the life of the mother, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop a state from doing so. And in fact, that's effectively what some states have already done. So don't pretend you're some sort of reasoned moderate who recognizes that there are some limited circumstances where it should be protected - because you cannot, repeat cannot, square that with the Dobbs decision. It's not possible.

 

 

[BootmanLA]

23 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

Not so absurd.  That was the situation in California for a while.

If I'm reading the thread right, you seem to be saying that people who married in California found themselves "un-married". That's kind of true, kind of not.

The circumstance came up twice. The first was when San Francisco unilaterally started issuing same sex marriage licenses in contravention of state law. Ultimately, the courts first ordered the license-dispensing to stop (which SF did) and then later held the marriages null and void because there was no authority for them in the first place. The ruling was, essentially, that a license acquired in violation of law (like one, say, issued to a man and his six-year old daughter) was null and void from the start, and couldn't be retroactively upheld.

Later, the state was sued and the Supreme Court of CA held that a ban on same-sex marriages violated the state constitution. and struck down that ban. People rushed to get married while at the same time anti-gay forces pushed a ballot initiative to prohibit same-sex marriages in the CA Constitution. That initiative narrowly passed. This time, the Court held that the marriages had been legally entered into at the time of the marriage, so the state was powerless to void that contract. Later still, the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was challenged in federal court and it was struck down under the US Constitution. Once that was affirmed at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, same-sex marriage became legal in all the states in the 9th Circuit (a huge swath of the western US). But at no time were the marriages conducted in California AFTER the courts ruled them legal in the state ever voided - just the ones authorized by San Francisco in 2004.

[BootmanLA]

23 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

Well, besides taking away the right for people of the same sex to get married in the future, the court could also take away the right to have one's marriage in a given state be recognized in another.

You seem focused on what happens to existing couples.  I'm concerned about people who want to get married in the future, too.

There was a time when I would have said "Well, the Supreme Court has already ruled on that" but these days....

There is a case from decades ago precisely addressing that issue. Texas recognizes common-law marriages - if you agree to be married, live together, and hold yourself out as a married couple for two years, you are legally married under common law.

Louisiana does not recognize common-law marriages for its own citizens/residents.

A couple who were common-law spouses in Texas came to Louisiana to visit relatives here. The husband was killed in a traffic accident, and the surviving wife sued, under Louisiana law, for various damages. Her right to sue was predicated on her being his surviving spouse - if she wasn't his spouse, she couldn't sue the other driver. The other driver's attorneys tried to dismiss the suit on the grounds that they couldn't have gotten legally married this way in Louisiana, so she wasn't eligible to sue. But the courts held that the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution required Louisiana courts to recognize her marriage, which was valid in Texas where they resided - just as if, say, they were first cousins married in a state that permitted cousins to marry, even if the state where the accident occurred prohibited cousin marriage.

But, as I say - with this Supreme Court, who knows what precedent they might throw out?

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, TotalTop said:

No abortion is not more safe than pregnancy or giving birth. This is a myth put out by abortion mills and by planned parenthood which was started by the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger who hated blacks, anyone poor, and non-European.  Ever wonder why many abortion clinics are in black and run down sections of a city, well now you know.  98% of abortions are done because the woman used her body and made her choice to have unsafe sex and be a cum dump, and not for rape/incest or the woman's life being in danger.

Again, made-up bullshit. You know this works both ways, don't you? If it weren't against the rules to target another member, one might envision all sorts of fabricated statistics I could make up about "TotalTop" and his sex life and what he enjoys and his criminal history and god knows what else. But I won't, because that wouldn't be right.

8 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Those tests for fetal abnormalities are notoriously inaccurate. A friend's wife tested that their second child would have them, they did not have an abortion and their second son was born perfectly healthy and normal and turned 5.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Assuming this friend exists, and assuming he actually has a wife, and assuming they actually have at least two children, and assuming they actually did this unnamed, undescribed, unknown "test" you mention, and assuming they did not in fact have an abortion, and assuming they had a boy, and that the first was also a boy, and assuming this second child is in fact healthy and assuming he did in fact turn 5 - a LOT of assumptions for which there is zero evidence, I'll note, other than your word - that still doesn't make fetal tests "notoriously inaccurate" any more than the one time you might have theoretically had trouble with an erection  makes you "notoriously impotent".

8 hours ago, TotalTop said:

If a woman does not want to become pregnant there are many different types of effective birth control she can use with a man and if the man and woman do not want pregnancy or HIV seroconversion to happen they should be using condoms.

24% of abortions occur in cases where the couple was using a form of birth control - most often condoms - and the birth control failed. That doesn't birth control isn't very effective; it means that sometimes, it doesn't work. In your world, such people are consigned to carry the pregnancy to term, apparently.

[NEDenver]

18 hours ago, ffunguy5 said:

Between this demonstrably false statement and your claim that you "personally know women who have had ten or eleven abortions" when you're clearly not someone a woman (much less "women") would confide in I have to conclude that you live under a bridge. 

 

I think it's important to understand that Republicans have been trained that facts don't matter more than their feelings.  I'm sure he feels abortion is riskier than pregnancy.  From that point, reality doesn't come into play.  It's like that stupid woman testifying in Congress that when the 10-year old rape victim got an abortion, that wasn't an abortion because she didn't object to it, and she objects to abortion, so everything's good.  All we have to do is focus group every case by a bunch of goddamned motherfucking Republicans.

[hntnhole]

damn ... outta response doo-dad's ... again .... I'll have to catch up later, I guess.   

In the meantime, allow me to express how impressive Mr. BootmanLA's logic, construction of text, controlling the flow of his written argument is. As previously mentioned, I was in the publishing business, and would have hired him in an eyeblink merely for these attributes, let alone all of <polite cough> the other ones. 

[rawTOP]

On 7/30/2022 at 1:46 PM, TotalTop said:

No abortion is not more safe than pregnancy or giving birth. This is a myth put out by abortion mills and by planned parenthood which was started by the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger who hated blacks, anyone poor, and non-European. 

This is a false statement. Evidence is here…

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

When you see a demonstrably false statement or conspiracy theory posted here, please report the post and an infraction will be given to the member (as I've done with TotalTop).

[BergenGuy]

On 7/30/2022 at 9:44 PM, BootmanLA said:

If I'm reading the thread right, you seem to be saying that people who married in California found themselves "un-married".

No, I wasn't saying that.  I was responding to the part of the original comment that seemed to imply that it would be unlikely that we could have a situation where gays in existing marriages could remain married while future marriages would be denied.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

No, I wasn't saying that.  I was responding to the part of the original comment that seemed to imply that it would be unlikely that we could have a situation where gays in existing marriages could remain married while future marriages would be denied.

what could happen is that states give different rights to different kinds of marriages.

[BootmanLA]

20 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

No, I wasn't saying that.  I was responding to the part of the original comment that seemed to imply that it would be unlikely that we could have a situation where gays in existing marriages could remain married while future marriages would be denied.

Thanks for clarifying! It is indeed possible that this could happen - in fact, if the constitutional protection for same-sex marriage were overturned by a conservative Supreme Court, that would almost certainly happen - because some states' existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage would kick in again, just like older abortion laws have kicked in, and yet if the marriage was legal at the time it was contracted, a decision like that can't invalidate it.

10 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

what could happen is that states give different rights to different kinds of marriages.

That is possible. But I think it's a little less likely, because you're getting into a pretty clear equal protection problem there. Remember Gorsuch is the one who wrote the opinion that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation IS discrimination on the basis of sex, and Roberts was also in the majority on that one. Even replacing Ginsburg with the Handmaiden, you still have five votes for equal protection. 

[Guest]

Could the Republican Party, be out of touch with the majority of Republicans/Republican voters about Roe vs. Wade as well as about other (gay) rights?

[think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62402625

[hntnhole]

11 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Even replacing Ginsburg with the Handmaiden,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ..... hadn't heard that particularly fraught-with-poison insult before.  Maybe a Tail .... er, Tale .... to go along with it?  

[Close2MyBro]

On 8/1/2022 at 7:26 AM, rawTOP said:

This is a false statement. Evidence is here…

[think before following links] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

When you see a demonstrably false statement or conspiracy theory posted here, please report the post and an infraction will be given to the member (as I've done with TotalTop).

Will you make sure that this rule applies to members of both political parties? I've seen plenty of false information posted by democrats on here as well. If the goal is to ensure that only factual information is posted, the the rule should be applied equally to both sides.