[Rushy]

The legal system isn’t corrupt because it disagrees with you.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

There are plenty of good arguements for the legality of abortion and simply ascribing to those views doesn’t make them morally bankrupt.

What is and isn't "morally bankrupt" is very much up to debate. I'm sure there's more than one thing you think is morally bankrupt in your government and mine. I don't think the argument "they don't think it be like it is, but it do" would sway you. Why expect it to sway me?

We allow humans to shoot other humans legally in certain cases, but all abortions are murder? It’s a shallow analysis that ignores the multitude of circumstances under which an abortion may be sought out. The question is complicated and unfortunately is being decided by people whose stock in trade is creating polarizing viewpoints for people to ascribe to.

I don't think it's shallow at all. It's a completely valid moral stance (just the same as the one where someone might think abortion is allowable in all cases). What intrigues me the most is when people start making these odd exceptions or reduction attempts for abortion. For example, people who think abortion is bad unless it was rape or incest. It's as if they've accepted abortion as wrong and/or evil, but a 'necessary' evil.

[Rama Set]

So why do you come out of the gates with polarizing statements if you agree there is nuance?  I can agree that people who want to make an exception for rape and incest are barking up the wrong tree because it concedes the notion that abortion is always killing but with legal loopholes. By the same token, I think the camp that wants to criminalize abortions in cases of life threatening pregnancies are similarly fucked in the head. The answer to this conundrum is neither “always my choice because my body” and “all abortion is murder”. I think the sooner everyone can concede that, the sooner a productive, ethical and moral compromise can be reached. Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

[WTF_Seriously]

Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

You think folks like Rushy care about society?  Their morality is right.  If they say it's murder, it's murder.  No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.

[Rama Set]

 

Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

You think folks like Rushy care about society?  Their morality is right.  If they say it's murder, it's murder.  No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.

I’m not the biggest Rushy fan, but I don’t doubt he cares about society. That’s a silly thing to say.

[WTF_Seriously]

Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

You think folks like Rushy care about society?  Their morality is right.  If they say it's murder, it's murder.  No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.

I’m not the biggest Rushy fan, but I don’t doubt he cares about society. That’s a silly thing to say.

I'd agree.  Perhaps I should have said the opinion of society.

[AATW]

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.

If Rushy is coming at it from the Christian angle, which I suspect he is, then I think he would argue (as would I) that the morality which comes from "muh holy book" is absolute.
Because if you believe it is a Holy Book inspired by 'im upstairs then that has an authority to it.
BUT, as you say we live in a society and an increasing number of people don't believe it is an authority, so that must be taken into account by any government claiming to represent the people they govern.

[WTF_Seriously]

If Rushy is coming at it from the Christian angle, which I suspect he is, then I think he would argue (as would I) that the morality which comes from "muh holy book" is absolute.

That's still just an opinion.  In that case, it's an opinion that's indoctrinated into all Christians.

[Pete Svarrior]

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.

Uh huh. And you got the idea that Rushy doesn't think morality is subjective from *checks notes* this post:

What is and isn't "morally bankrupt" is very much up to debate.

[...]

I don't think it's shallow at all. It's a completely valid moral stance (just the same as the one where someone might think abortion is allowable in all cases).

I know you said you didn't bother reading the thread before jumping in (sigh), but at least do us the courtesy of reading the posts made after you've joined.

BUT, as you say we live in a society and an increasing number of people don't believe it is an authority, so that must be taken into account by any government claiming to represent the people they govern.

Must it, really? The government is elected - that's where they get their mandate, and not from vague and largely impossible arguments about representing everyone.

Meanwhile, SC justices are not elected, because they're supposed to be above the electorate's random whims.

So, if SC decides that stopping states from banning abortion is unconstitutional, it will be down to individual states to decide what actually happens (or Congress could propose an amendment, but let's be serious now). The only thing they "must" do is not get voted out and have the opposite party reverse their decisions in their state.

[AATW]

BUT, as you say we live in a society and an increasing number of people don't believe it is an authority, so that must be taken into account by any government claiming to represent the people they govern.

Must it, really? The government is elected - that's where they get their mandate, and not from vague and largely impossible arguments about representing everyone.

I certainly think they should. They are elected by "the people". What's the point in having a representative democracy if the government doesn't make laws which represent what "the people" want.
Now, of course in real life they can't keep everyone happy - you no doubt know that from your modding here. Whatever you do some people are going to moan. Usually me. But I'd suggest a government should try and represent and make laws which reflect the majority viewpoint. That viewpoint may change over time which is why we have regular elections, if the government aren't doing things the majority like then next time out they'll get voted out and a different lot can have a go.
(This is where the UK FPTP system is particularly poor, we always end up with a government which only a minority voted for. Last time out the Tories got 43.6% of the vote and ended up with a huge majority)

Meanwhile, SC justices are not elected, because they're supposed to be above the electorate's random whims.

This seems like a particularly poor system, they're placed by the incumbent president and are there till they die, right? So a president who happens to be in when a certain number of them die can back the SCOTUS with people who reflect his (or her!) own views and they're there till they die, or become incapacitated, no matter how public opinion shifts in the meantime.

[Pete Svarrior]

I certainly think they should.

I'll leave the "but that's just your opinion tho" quip open for our resident opinion-haver.

They are elected by "the people". What's the point in having a representative democracy if the government doesn't make laws which represent what "the people" want.

Right. But we have the mechanism for this. It's voting. If the elected state governments do not represent what the people in these states want, they should get booted. I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to expect elected officials to create policy against their conscience - if they are as massively at odds with the electorate as you claim, they shouldn't be elected in the first place.

So, by my intuition, something in the picture you drew makes it fall apart. My guess would be that most state legislators don't actually thump Bibles on the table while incoherently babbling about Baby Jesus (I'm sure some do). It's probably more nuanced than that.

This seems like a particularly poor system, they're placed by the incumbent president and are there till they die, right? So a president who happens to be in when a certain number of them die can back the SCOTUS with people who reflect his (or her!) own views and they're there till they die, or become incapacitated, no matter how public opinion shifts in the meantime.

Not as bad as hereditary Lords, but yes. That said, in this case the decision is whether or not states should be prohibited from passing certain laws. Revoking this prohibition doesn't, by itself, impose anything on anyone. The reason people are twitchy about it is that they want to impose their own views onto everyone for much longer than anyone's lifetime.

[Action80]

I certainly think they should. They are elected by "the people". What's the point in having a representative democracy if the government doesn't make laws which represent what "the people" want.

The United States is not a "representative democracy."

But I'd suggest a government should try and represent and make laws which reflect the majority viewpoint.

Do you really believe that? Or are you just stating that because it is your opinion that a majority of people worship Molech?

That viewpoint may change over time which is why we have regular elections, if the government aren't doing things the majority like then next time out they'll get voted out and a different lot can have a go.

Chuckle.

(This is where the UK FPTP system is particularly poor, we always end up with a government which only a minority voted for. Last time out the Tories got 43.6% of the vote and ended up with a huge majority) I didn't get my way, no one gave me a fair shake.

FTFY.

Meanwhile, SC justices are not elected, because they're supposed to be above the electorate's random whims.

This seems like a particularly poor system, they're placed by the incumbent president and are there till they die, right? So a president who happens to be in when a certain number of them die can back the SCOTUS with people who reflect his (or her!) own views and they're there till they die, or become incapacitated, no matter how public opinion shifts in the meantime.

Chuckle.

The SCOTUS does not write laws, they determine the constitutionality of written law and the acts of governmental agencies/institutions. The decision of Roe v Wade was not law.

If the US Congress attempted to pass a bill legalizing abortion, everyone would see precisely how the people of the US felt about abortion. It wouldn't survive any initial discussion, let alone committee.

Imagine the people coming to live in a neighborhood (let alone country) of your making...they'd all be dead in a week.

But, that is the goal of run o' the mill Malthusians such as you and others here.

You worship Margaret Sanger and cheer for eugenics and ethnocide, just as she did.

[Rama Set]

The United States is not a "representative democracy."

Source?  The US Government disagrees with you.

The SCOTUS does not write laws, they determine the constitutionality of written law and the acts of governmental agencies/institutions. The decision of Roe v Wade was not law.

He never said they did.

If the US Congress attempted to pass a bill legalizing abortion, everyone would see precisely how the people of the US felt about abortion. It wouldn't survive any initial discussion, let alone committee.

Imagine the people coming to live in a neighborhood (let alone country) of your making...they'd all be dead in a week.

But, that is the goal of run o' the mill Malthusians such as you and others here.

You worship Margaret Sanger and cheer for eugenics and ethnocide, just as she did.

Never change, Lackey.  Welcome back.

[Action80]

The United States is not a "representative democracy."

Source?  The US Government disagrees with you.

I do not care what the piece of toilet paper website crap you presented has written on it.

The United States is a constitutional republic.

That is the official form of government within the United States.

I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.

The SCOTUS does not write laws, they determine the constitutionality of written law and the acts of governmental agencies/institutions. The decision of Roe v Wade was not law.

He never said they did.

No, he wrote they did.

Again, your selective use and neglect of inference is apparent for all to see.

[Rama Set]

The United States is not a "representative democracy."

Source?  The US Government disagrees with you.

I do not care what the piece of toilet paper website crap you presented has written on it.

The United States is a constitutional republic.

That is the official form of government within the United States.

That doesn’t conflict with it being a representative democracy.

I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?

No, he wrote they did.

Again, your selective use and neglect of inference is apparent for all to see.

He didn’t write that either but please feel free to quote where he did and I will happily admit I am wrong.

[Lord Dave]

I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?

He's saying that the ard working people want to overthrow the rich, fatcat politicians so the things the government owns is owned BY THE PEOPLE and not by the government and we are willing to use gaslighting and unleashing Covid 19 to kill as many as we need to to succeed, but we will not, not without open warfare.

[Rama Set]

I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?

He's saying that the ard working people want to overthrow the rich, fatcat politicians so the things the government owns is owned BY THE PEOPLE and not by the government and we are willing to use gaslighting and unleashing Covid 19 to kill as many as we need to to succeed, but we will not, not without open warfare.

Thanks, I don't speak disenfranchised right-wing American.

[markjo]

If the US Congress attempted to pass a bill legalizing abortion, everyone would see precisely how the people of the US felt about abortion. It wouldn't survive any initial discussion, let alone committee.

What makes you think that the US Congress cares how the people of the US feel about much of anything, let alone abortion?

Today, a 61% majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. These views are relatively unchanged in the past few years.

[AATW]

Welp

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898

[Lord Dave]

Yep.
A bunch of women just became murderers.  And god help any who have miscarriages.  Thats a prison sentence.

[AATW]

Yep.
A bunch of women just became murderers.

They already were #Rushy