Recent Posts

1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by Rama Set on Today at 11:31:58 AM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Simply wrong. The courts of a country do not "rule" on the topic of secession. If a territory of Algeria is feeling persecuted and wants to form its own country because of irreconcilable differences it is not for the persecutors to decide. That falls into an outside structure such as International Law. When you have a dispute with someone you appeal to an outside source or structure, not the person you are having a dispute with. In secession the US Colonies originally appealed to outside principles of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, under principles which are still used and cited by territories who have seceded from their countries.

In International Law the topic of secession is still a very much debated and controversial subject and is nowhere near settled:

E-International Relations - Is There a Right to Secession in International Law?

    ...

    Conclusion

    The principle of self-determination, particularly the right to remedial secession, is still a much-debated topic in international law. Its development from a colonial to post-colonial doctrine has been highly controversial for many states, scholars and international lawyers alike. The lack of recent ICJ opinion and judgement on the matter has only served to add further confusion to the principle, and there is a pressing need for the Court to resolve this before its ambiguous interpretation impacts further on the international legal system.

According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

International law appears to disagree with the US law as interpreted by SCOTUS. It wouldn’t be the first time the US disregarded international law and international law is not held to be as binding as domestic law. It’s largely irrelevant though since in the case of a state declaring their secession, the choice for the federal government would be to either let them go peacefully or not.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on Today at 09:09:30 AM »
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
No sockpuppet accounts, please. You can continue the discussion from your main account.
3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 06:36:44 AM »
Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?

Please state the name and birthdates of the humans killed.
4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by clickbait on Today at 04:48:40 AM »
Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 04:35:32 AM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Simply wrong. The courts of a country do not "rule" on the topic of secession. If a territory of Algeria is feeling persecuted and wants to form its own country because of irreconcilable differences it is not for the persecutors to decide. That falls into an outside structure such as International Law. When you have a dispute with someone you appeal to an outside source or structure, not the person you are having a dispute with. In secession the US Colonies originally appealed to outside principles of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, under principles which are still used and cited by territories who have seceded from their countries.

In International Law the topic of secession is still a very much debated and controversial subject and is nowhere near settled:

E-International Relations - Is There a Right to Secession in International Law?

    ...

    Conclusion

    The principle of self-determination, particularly the right to remedial secession, is still a much-debated topic in international law. Its development from a colonial to post-colonial doctrine has been highly controversial for many states, scholars and international lawyers alike. The lack of recent ICJ opinion and judgement on the matter has only served to add further confusion to the principle, and there is a pressing need for the Court to resolve this before its ambiguous interpretation impacts further on the international legal system.

According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.
6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by WTF_Seriously on Today at 03:07:30 AM »

Actually, no. When the US Colonies seceded from Great Britain the Declaration of Independence derived its power of one political body to secede from another from Natural Law and the Law of Nations. It didn't matter what the courts of Great Britain said. They did not need to "take it up with the courts". What the British courts said in that case was irrelevant, as the Colonies no longer recognized the authority of Great Britain.


The Declaration of Independence was derived from a group of people saying, "Fuck off."  It had nothing to do with "Natural Law".  The result of that was the British government said, "Sorry, but no you don't."  It didn't matter what the colonies thought.  What it resulted in was a war.  It was only by might that the colonies were able to assert there final independence.  The British government didn't simply say, "My bad. You folks go about your business."  The rite to succession was no more a rite with Britain than it is now. 
7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by stack on Today at 12:16:21 AM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Sure it has been determined. Texas v White. State secession is considered unconstitutional.

Now would that stop Texas or California, or whatever State, from voting to secede from the Union? Of course not.

Just like if I want to discriminate based upon a person's disability, I certainly can. But that would be unconstitutional and unlawful therefore I would have to face the consequences of doing so.

If a State wants to secede, it is forbidden by the US Constitution as stated by SCOTUS, therefore, they would face the consequences, whatever they may be, of attempting to do so. Simple as that.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

What I really want to know is why Thomas called out to revisit Obergefell and not Love? What's the difference? There's nothing in the constitution about marriage. If Thomas has his way, both should be revisited and tossed.
8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 11:53:39 PM »
Quote from: stack
None of this changes the fact that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Actually, no. When the US Colonies seceded from Great Britain the Declaration of Independence derived its power of one political body to secede from another from Natural Law and the Law of Nations. It didn't matter what the courts of Great Britain said. They did not need to "take it up with the courts". What the British courts said in that case was irrelevant, as the Colonies no longer recognized the authority of Great Britain.

It was not an explicit declaration of war, but a declaration that the authority would no longer be recognized and that they had a right to self govern. The Declaration of Independence has been widely held as legitimate, and exists in a special extra-legal category which applied beyond the laws of any country.

So again, the issue has not been determined. The United States broke away from Great Britain, which has been seen as a natural right, and it simply did not matter what British judges had to say about it.
9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by stack on June 28, 2022, 10:48:48 PM »
Here is liberal justice hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg explaining that she thought justices were legislating on the bench with the Roe vs. Wade ruling -

So what? As it stands, succession is deemed forbidden by the 150 year old ruling by the SCOTUS. Until some law is passed saying succession is federally allowed, and it passes through the courts and through SCOTUS, succession is still federally forbidden. Simple as that.

Ginsburg clarified her statement in the video you referenced during her confirmation:

When Sen. Hank Brown (R-CO) asked about her remarks during her confirmation hearing, she clarified her stance: “Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men. That was the idea I tried to express in the lecture to which you referred.”

You not liking that fact is the same as me not liking the removal of RvW. As it is, just like the 150 year old succession ruling, it stands until challenged and defeated. Simple as that.

Quote from: stack
The fact remains that the SCOTUS ruled that succession was (is) forbidden and that is the current law of the land. You said it wasn't. But it is.

Incorrect. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. Rulings that do attempt act as new laws can be overturned as unconstitutional. SCOTUS merely acts to clarify an existing law. This is why Roe vs. Wade was thrown out. Justices were creating legislation from the bench. You have made no effort to show that the 1869 Texas v. White ruling is constitutional, or that there was an existing law on this at all.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer (neither are you). I don't have to make an argument why something is constitutional or not. That's up to SCOTUS. And the fact of the matter is that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

You know that there was not an existing regulation. This is the exact sort of behavior this Supreme Court is ruling against.

Asking whether secession is legal is also a nonsensical question. When one political body secedes from another, the seceding body is rejecting the authority of the first. All laws in effect in the original nation are no longer applicable to the seceding nation, since it is no longer part of that original nation. This is what occurred when the United States peacefully seceded from Great Britain. It did not matter if it was legal in the British system of government for the US to do it or not. It was then the British government who acted as aggressors against the United States for walking away. The British government could have opted to let them go peacefully, but did not.

You are doing the equivalent of appealing to a British judge ruling that the US could not secede from Britain. It could and did, and that ruling would be irrelevant to the US. The British chose to become the aggressors. They could have simply chosen to let them leave, or perhaps have tried harder to negotiate their grievances before it got to that point. The US did make a good faith effort to negotiate with Britain at the time but were rebuffed on multiple occasions, leading to eventual secession.

None of this changes the fact that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.
10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Last post by rooster on June 28, 2022, 08:47:24 PM »
That seems pretty unlikely.
For now it might seem unlikely, but also seems pretty fucking dangerous to assume it will stay that way given the political climate here in the states and how SCOTUS has their eyes on rolling back other rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriages. We have extremists here and the conservatives are not afraid to pander to them.

There's a lot of complexity and nuance here which too many people on both sides don't acknowledge.
Ah yes, the GOP is well known for their nuance and delicate handling of complex issues.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here but less than 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester and it's almost exclusively for medical emergencies. Women don't go around carrying fetuses for that long and then decide to get rid of it for fun. Meanwhile, states are jumping on this with their trigger laws. I don't know if you're aware, but states have been pushing things for awhile now - weird rules on forcing clinics to have hallways that are a specific width (for example) all as an excuse to close them down if they're not meeting these arbitrary codes. Women's health clinics don't need hallways to be that big btw because they're not pushing a bunch of patients around on gurneys. It doesn't take a huge leap to think they might eventually ban all abortion. I mean, it was only 2012 when an Irish woman died because she was having a miscarriage but doctors weren't allowed to intervene because the fetus still had a heartbeat. Kinda weird to assume the USA in 2022 won't also be that heinous.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-06-27/the-story-behind-irelands-abortion-ban-and-its-reversal

Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.