*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #380 on: June 28, 2022, 08:02:59 AM »
According to the Medium article posted the 1869 Supreme Court relied on the Articles of the Confederation in its constitutional argument, which is curious if true.

https://medium.com/politicoid/constitutionality-of-secession-19ce11c3b671

    The Supreme Court opinion relied on the supposed perpetual nature of the union. Whence did they obtain this idea? The Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the formal name of this document is “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.”

    The perpetual nature of the union, under the Articles of Confederation, is addressed in section XIII in the following phrase: “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual…” (Page on yale.edu). The ruling also made use of the preamble of the Constitution, something rarely done. But I guess all bets are off, when you are relying on the Articles of Confederation to support your constitutional argument. Specifically, the ruling made use of the fact that the Constitution was an attempt to “form a more perfect union” (Preamble).

    Utilizing on these two ideas, Supreme Court Justice Chase asked “What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?” (LII / Legal Information Institute) One question that must be asked is “why must a perpetual union be inherently the most perfect kind of union?”

It doesn't really sound like that ruling was thought through. It defined the union from the Articles of Confederation as "perpetual" and then takes the "more perfect union" statement in the US Constitution to declare that it was a binding agreement that would last forever.

This site characterizes it in the same way:

https://encyclopedia.federalism.org/index.php/Texas_v._White_(1869)

    The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue that the Civil War had raised: could a state lawfully secede from the union? The Court sided with the victors in the war; secession, it held, was not constitutionally permissible. The Court appealed to the provision in the Articles of Confederation declaring the union to be “perpetual,” and to the preamble of the Constitution “ordaining” a “more perfect union.” “It is difficult,” Chase remarked, “to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?” Chase concluded, “The Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.”
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 05:17:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3286
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #381 on: June 28, 2022, 08:05:46 AM »
Yeah, the Supreme Court has made invalid interpretations in the past and its past rulings are regularly overruled. One was just overruled a few days ago.

Well it’s valid until it isn’t, like what just happened a few days ago.

In the meantime, the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

So Texas v White ruling is still valid until SCOTUS wipes it out. They haven’t yet.

When Texas left the Union it was stripped of its representation as a State:

https://tnm.me/news/political/texas-vs-white-why-the-supreme-court-is-dead-wrong-on-texas-independence/

    "This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain “reconstruction” acts of the U.S. Congress."

A state denied representation and rights of a state as guaranteed by the Constitution, how does that work? If you think the Civil War decided the issue and not the Constitution, as you have argued previously, then by all intents Texas was not a State.

Yeah SCOTUS rulings can be filled with contradictions, like recently. So what? Doesn’t change the fact that a ruling was made and stands until it is dispensed with. Your argument is neither here nor there.

On what basis exactly, does Salmon P. Chase say that the states couldn't leave?

Don’t know, but that was the ruling in Texas v White some 150+ years ago. Still stands today.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter. SCOTUS ruled that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

SCOTUS decides what’s covered by the constitution and what’s not by interpreting the constitution and applying it where appropriate.

So as it stands, state succession is forbidden an states that did succeed were still apart of the union even though their rights were hampered as a punishment during reconstruction.

So there you have it in a nutshell.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #382 on: June 28, 2022, 08:34:07 AM »
The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The current Supreme Court just made a determination that if it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it can be ruled unconstitutional. This is why you were worried about the reversal of other rulings based on loose concepts being ruled unconstitutional.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-what-s-next-abortion-n1296339



By this standard a lot of those old creative interpretations based on vague concepts are unconstitutional.

The 1869 Texas v. White ruling incredulously took the definition from the Articles of the Confederation declaring its union to be "perpetual" and also took the "more perfect union" phrase from the US Constitution to creatively and illogically declared that a state can't ever leave the US. Clearly reprehensible.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 01:13:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #383 on: June 28, 2022, 01:21:56 PM »
Pertinent quotes, Pt. 1

Twitter @highroadsaloon

Quote
I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?" She instantly replied "yes." Then she added "there will also be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.


Twitter @DavidNHackney

Quote
Abortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio. I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects. So at some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die


Imgur user 'zaboomafoo19'

Quote
At 29 years old, we found we were expecting our second child in TX. It was a surprise, but a welcome one. At 17 weeks, we found this child had no kidney, no liver, no legs, but still a heartbeat. I was referred to a clinic 2 hours away. I was told "This will be out of pocket". I was told "The insurance will cover it IF YOU WAIT FOR THE HEARTBEAT TO STOP". I was told "It's not 20 weeks old so it's not a real person". I was told a lot of things. Finally, I was told to say goodbye and move on. I was one of the fortunate ones. Women need real helathcare. Abortion is a right. Period.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2006
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #384 on: June 28, 2022, 03:17:24 PM »
Pertinent quotes, Pt. 1

Twitter @highroadsaloon

Quote
I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?" She instantly replied "yes." Then she added "there will also be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.


Twitter @DavidNHackney

Quote
Abortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio. I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects. So at some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die


Imgur user 'zaboomafoo19'

Quote
At 29 years old, we found we were expecting our second child in TX. It was a surprise, but a welcome one. At 17 weeks, we found this child had no kidney, no liver, no legs, but still a heartbeat. I was referred to a clinic 2 hours away. I was told "This will be out of pocket". I was told "The insurance will cover it IF YOU WAIT FOR THE HEARTBEAT TO STOP". I was told "It's not 20 weeks old so it's not a real person". I was told a lot of things. Finally, I was told to say goodbye and move on. I was one of the fortunate ones. Women need real helathcare. Abortion is a right. Period.
Yeah, I agree Tumeni...

People that think such thoughts should be neutered or spayed.

That way, they do not need to worry about the option of abortion.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #385 on: June 28, 2022, 03:19:34 PM »
People that think such thoughts should be neutered or spayed.

Forcibly?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2006
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #386 on: June 28, 2022, 03:22:40 PM »
People that think such thoughts should be neutered or spayed.

Forcibly?
Of course not.

There are many ways to avoid the possibility of procreation.

Essentially, you presented a bunch of fables decrying the removal of the carte blanche option of satisfying the bloodlust.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 04:38:42 PM by Action80 »
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1793
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #387 on: June 28, 2022, 05:01:37 PM »

There are many ways to avoid the possibility of procreation.

Yes, but the GOP only supports one of them, which is a huge part of the problem.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3286
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #388 on: June 28, 2022, 07:16:21 PM »
The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The current Supreme Court just made a determination that if it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it can be ruled unconstitutional. This is why you were worried about the reversal of other rulings based on loose concepts being ruled unconstitutional.

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.

That may change with a new ruling, but thus far no new ruling exists.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-what-s-next-abortion-n1296339



By this standard a lot of those old creative interpretations based on vague concepts are unconstitutional.

By whose standard? Jessica Levinson, MSNBC Opinion Columnist, standard? A lot of stuff is interpreted by SCOTUS. That's what SCOTUS is charged with. Your opinion on what's a "creative interpretation" or not has no bearing on the rulings from SCOTUS.

The 1869 Texas v. White ruling incredulously took the definition from the Articles of the Confederation declaring a union to be "perpetual" and also took the "more perfect union" phrase from the US Constitution to creatively and illogically declare that a state can't ever leave the US. Clearly reprehensible.

Again, your personal interpretation as to what the SCOTUS ruled on matters not. You're not a constitutional lawyer (neither am I) and have no sway as to what ruling is "incredulous" or "reprehensible".

The fact remains, SCOTUS forbids succession and you were wrong about that. Whether you agree with the ruling or not.

And the super odd fact is why Thomas recently called out revisiting, specifically Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and didn't call out Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)?

Why 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.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3867
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #389 on: June 28, 2022, 07:44:03 PM »
Hell yeah, can't wait for ectopic pregnancies to be a death sentence in the USofA.

Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #390 on: June 28, 2022, 07:52:44 PM »
Hell yeah, can't wait for ectopic pregnancies to be a death sentence in the USofA.
That seems pretty unlikely.
The trouble with this debate is that both sides can't help themselves taking it to extremes.
If you're pro-life then the other side claim you're intent on enslaving and killing women.
If you're pro-choice then the other side claim you enjoy murdering babies for the lolz.

There's a lot of complexity and nuance here which too many people on both sides don't acknowledge.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #391 on: June 28, 2022, 08:05:06 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 -



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.

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.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 09:47:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3867
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #392 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.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 10:50:19 PM by rooster »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3286
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #393 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #394 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.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 12:18:16 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3286
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #395 on: June 29, 2022, 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.

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1189
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #396 on: June 29, 2022, 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. 
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #397 on: June 29, 2022, 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.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 08:04:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #398 on: June 29, 2022, 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?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7057
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #399 on: June 29, 2022, 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.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.