Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Or far left politics as well.

I don't think so.

The political left is usually defined as wanting something different than was or is, something new they feel would be better and often concerning the redistribution of wealth, knowledge and power;
As opposed to when small groups in the past (nobility, who owned wealth and farm-land) and present (owners of wealth and the financial-industrial complex) had or have a monopoly on these.
So they see things as shit, but wanting life and society to be something they feel is better.

Where the right is usually defined as the group who are in favour of the status quo, and where the far right sometimes feels strongly things used to be better and long for past family values, religious influence and a strong positing of men in the family and society.

 

It's a rough and short way I'm saying this, but I think this about sums it up. Anyone want to elaborate or correct me, please feel free to do so.

And then there's populism but that gets people even more confused about what left and right in politics means and I would like to enjoy my glass of wine before touching that. 😉

Edited June 29, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maxine-waters-urges-people-to-e2-80-98defy-e2-80-99-supreme-court-after-abortion-ruling/ar-AAYQqvF

 

This post and link made me think about an aspect of abortions:

It's a fact that women in need, often have found ways to terminatie their pregnancy even when it was forbidden and when medical science was less evolved. Chances are, they will search these ways out again and that might be hazardous to their health.

So is't performing abortions in certain cases to prevent harm, then a doctors duty - based on his/her Hippocratic oath?

Edited June 29, 2022 by Guest

[hntnhole]

3 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

Chances are, they will search these ways out again and that might be hazardous to their health.

You're right, of course.  The medical profession is based on rendering needed medical care to anyone, without regard to extraneous issues, and not on cultural preconceptions.  Consigning women to the dark ages of the past is an ethical, moral, and certainly intellectual disgrace. Here in the US, there are States that will continue to offer comprehensive medical services to women, thank Whatever.  

Girls are often raised to believe they are subject to the <polite cough> "leadership" of their husbands, including sex on demand, thanks to demented, archaic religious teaching.  When the inevitable occurs, the husband then blames the wife for becoming preggers, out of a sense of entitlement, also instilled since childhood. 

Yes, that sense of blunt ownership has begun to fade in some areas, but it still thrives in others.  Once women gained the right to have a determinative say in what happens to their own bodies, the now-old men who depended on acceptance of their God-Given right to dominate women to function, find themselves desperately trying to stem the tide of history - like - oh, say - Mr. Thomas and his fellow 17th Century era "intelligentsia".  

As always, most men tend to think with their Cocks, and blame the consequences on something - anything - other than themselves.  

Edited June 29, 2022 by hntnhole
thought-flow

[Guest]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:17 AM, hntnhole said:

Your point is well taken.  As to the others (Protestant - i.e. Luther derived), the method of teaching racism was less overt, and thus more insidious.  "They" (meaning P.O.C.) simply weren't mentioned.  The R.C's were heavily denigrated in the most overt fashion (after all - they worship statues - which I was quite literally taught as a little kid in Sunday School), they don't have to be sorry for their sins, because they only have to pay money and count beads, and then they can go do whatever it was all over again. This, when we were taught that every single little thing we ever, ever did wrong was written down in some impossibly enormous book in the sky, and we would have to answer for every single entry under our individual name. I clearly remember someone asking something in Sunday School - can't recall just what - about the people on the other side of the river dividing the city I grew up in - and the answer came that "they stay over there, we stay over here on our side".  This shit was literally taught to little kids.  So, generations upon generations of mostly Northern-European-derived Americans were inculcated with the notion that "the other" simply was not relevant to "our" lives.  We wind up therefore, with Caucasians today who can actually say shit like "I didn't own any slaves - it's not my fault".  And this was in the second-largest metro area outside of Chicago.

With this kind of nurturing of kids, it's hardly a wonder that we find ourselves where we are these days. 

Talking about voluntary racial segregation like this in large cities or not mentioning 'POC' is not racism.  FYI, Most Lutherans are central European, not Northern European.

The slavery comment is also true, nobody alive today in the USA besides R Kelly owned a slave.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, hntnhole said:

You're right, of course.  The medical profession is based on rendering needed medical care to anyone, without regard to extraneous issues, and not on cultural preconceptions.  Consigning women to the dark ages of the past is an ethical, moral, and certainly intellectual disgrace. Here in the US, there are States that will continue to offer comprehensive medical services to women, thank Whatever.  

Girls are often raised to believe they are subject to the <polite cough> "leadership" of their husbands, including sex on demand, thanks to demented, archaic religious teaching.  When the inevitable occurs, the husband then blames the wife for becoming preggers, out of a sense of entitlement, also instilled since childhood. 

Yes, that sense of blunt ownership has begun to fade in some areas, but it still thrives in others.  Once women gained the right to have a determinative say in what happens to their own bodies, the now-old men who depended on acceptance of their God-Given right to dominate women to function, find themselves desperately trying to stem the tide of history - like - oh, say - Mr. Thomas and his fellow 17th Century era "intelligentsia".  

As always, most men tend to think with their Cocks, and blame the consequences on something - anything - other than themselves.  

Many women are against abortion and you like to "blame" men for unsafe sex, but many women want it and have it just as much if not more than men do.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

This post and link made me think about an aspect of abortions:

It's a fact that women in need, often have found ways to terminatie their pregnancy even when it was forbidden and when medical science was less evolved. Chances are, they will search these ways out again and that might be hazardous to their health.

So is't performing abortions in certain cases to prevent harm, then a doctors duty - based on his/her Hippocratic oath?

Or the women would just murder their children after they were born. This still happens in China and other East Asian and South Asian countries today.

[a2malways]

8 minutes ago, TotalTop said:

Talking about voluntary racial segregation like this in large cities or not mentioning 'POC' is not racism. 

whaaaaaa?

[Guest]

On 6/29/2022 at 6:35 AM, hungry_hole said:

I think that abortion is a "special right", unlike any other because no matter how you look at it, it involves terminating a potential life.  So I think that worrying about potential censorship of inter-racial same-sex marriage is, in my opinion, paranoia. The paranoia is being incited by the Democrats in the hope of getting more votes.

Exactly it is fear mongering, and racism, but that has always been what the Democratic party has supported. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, a2malways said:

whaaaaaa?

Many POC self-segregate by their own choice and are extremely racist towards their own race as well as others. Now we have universities that completely support racist segregation.

[think before following links] https://www.newsweek.com/black-students-only-housing-washington-university-1633265

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Or the women would just murder their children after they were born. This still happens in China and other East Asian and South Asian countries today.

I don't really think that response is neither here nor there, with respect. 

I'm not in favour of abortions as such - probably no one is - but there are circumstances that might warent one, I can imagine sound reasons for not carrying a foetus to term; and as it's a woman's body carrying a foetus I feel that it should be more a woman's prerogative to choose than a man's or society's. 
Perhaps the conversation about each case where a pregnant woman is considering one should primarily be between her and her doctor, not between her and society.

Giving a child up for adoption as some mothers do - for instance after rape; or because they don't have the financial means to care of the child - can possibly also scar a child.
There are shades of grey and sometimes perfect is the enemy of good, is the point I'm trying to make.

 

But now you've found the time, I am still open to here your thoughts on politics with regard to gay rights. Some people don't think any Republican voters would even try and make an effort and I'm hoping you'll prove them wrong:

On 6/28/2022 at 11:11 AM, BareLover666 said:

what are your thoughts on the role of governments in protecting (or not) the right to have sex with someone of your own gender, and same-sex-relationships, if any?

Should these be protected or not, if so: how and preferably by Federal or by (your) State government? 

If not, how do you feel about anti-sodomy laws when concerning homosexuality and (biblical/religious) groups that are against all gay sex and for instance favour conversion therapy where parents can send their young-adult or pubescent children to?
 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Many women are against abortion and you like to "blame" men for unsafe sex, but many women want it and have it just as much if not more than men do.

Your point being ?

[Guest]

19 hours ago, hntnhole said:

As always, most men tend to think with their Cocks, and blame the consequences on something - anything - other than themselves.  

I'm a bit of misanthrope so basically often think people - all men and women - are either bitches or bastards.

And I've known enough women who think only with their vaginas. Almost all of them when they turn 30 in fact.
Which as a man who enjoys thinking with his cock I can relate to but it gets irritating when people/women sanctify or glorify motherhood. It ain't that special, all mammals do it.

And now - to borrow a fellow member's words - back to our scheduled program. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Guest

[BootmanLA]

On 6/29/2022 at 5:35 AM, hungry_hole said:

I think that abortion is a "special right", unlike any other because no matter how you look at it, it involves terminating a potential life.  So I think that worrying about potential censorship of inter-racial same-sex marriage is, in my opinion, paranoia. The paranoia is being incited by the Democrats in the hope of getting more votes.

Really?

One of the first things legal analysts look at, in close decisions of the Court, are the concurrences and dissents. Lots of people will be focused on the actual decision, but concurrences and dissents, especially when several justices join in them, can be extremely helpful in predicting the direction the Court will be moving. Back when the liberals plus Anthony Kennedy could make up a majority (especially on LGBT issues), the foaming at the mouth dissents from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia were predictable rants about how the founders (or the people who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for that matter) could not possibly have meant to protect anything related to LGBT people, and thus any "right" to same-sex anything was constitutionally invalid. Thomas is still very up front about that position. He noted in his concurrence in Dobbs that the Court should re-examine not only Roe, but Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (consensual private sodomy), and even Griswold (contraception). How is it "fearmongering" or "paranoia" when the senior-most Justice on the Court has written in plain English that he would vote to overrule those cases if given the opportunity?

After all, for right-wing Christianists, "marriage" is a sacrament instituted by God, not a legal arrangement between two adults. Thomas would vote to overturn Obergefell in a heartbeat - he's made clear his judicial philosophy is that if a prior decision of the Court is wrong, the Court has the duty to overturn it, no matter how much it may upend life for ordinary Americans. Alito has a similar view. Kavanaugh and Barrett haven't gone THAT far, yet, but they've also made it clear they're not opposed to overturning precedent even when it's well established, and Gorsuch may or may not be willing to join them. At this point, Chief Justice Roberts is almost an afterthought; he's in favor of precedent but there are (as we saw this month in Dobbs) five votes to ignore precedent entirely if they care enough about the issue.

When Hillary Clinton said, point blank, in 2016 that voting for her was the only thing that could save Roe, she was right. Some of your misogynistic twits are apparently perfectly okay with the result; all I can say is, wait till it's your turn. 

[NEDenver]

5 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Exactly it is fear mongering, and racism, but that has always been what the Democratic party has supported. 

 

Crowder?  Really?  That 3 lonely brain cells in a smooth gelatin sack twit is carrying your argument?  Dude.  You’ve *got* to be able to do better.

[NEDenver]

On 6/29/2022 at 2:44 PM, BareLover666 said:

 

So is't performing abortions in certain cases to prevent harm, then a doctors duty - based on his/her Hippocratic oath?

No, and the Hippocratic oath doesn’t have any legal standing in the US.  There are also the cases we’re going to have of women carrying non viable fetuses to term where the life of the woman is at risk (not “mother” because there’s really no child) because carrying to term and giving birth is always risky for the woman, and may damage the woman’s reproductive organs so that future children are either impossible or not advised.

So, like it or not, we’ve entered a period where 5 or 6 ideologues are ready to hand down rulings ignoring medicine, science, and just treating people well in favor of their religiously motivated biases.  And honestly, the people who think Crowder makes good arguments and Ben Shapiro is intellectual already won.  The 2024 election results will be tossed in favor of Republicans.  I’m really thinking Washington State may be safer than Colorado right now.