CreepyMcCreeperson
Veteran
It’s about the people who refuse to vote for a candidate unless the promise reparations.
BREAKING: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs Wade
- Thread starter Dr. Acula
- Start date
Dems had a super majority because of conservadems who were largely anti-abortion. Also, that was a different time politically.
Furthermore, Dems don't really have a majority in the Senate right now. It's 50/50 (Kamala can only vote when there's a tie) and the filibuster exists. Dems in the House have passed bills protecting abortion but it's DOA in the Senate because of Republicans.
Or women will just get the procedure done in states that allow it.
Ball game. 
glad I live in a blue state.
glad I live in a blue state.blase_chic
Pro
I sometimes think that this boils down to the left pushing population control vs the right wanting people to keep breeding so not to one day exhaust poor labor workers.
I'm pro whatever tbh.
I'm pro whatever tbh.
So basically you let CACs get away with injustices and not attack those that are in power. Just "plan for the worst and rugged bootstraps" for black people.
Because im not reacting like you, you make false accusations? You not doing shyt but crying anyway. Enough about me, what are YOU going to do?
To all the “responsibility and consequence” posters:
Why would you want an innocent baby to hold the weight of being someone’s “consequence” for their entire life? That’s not crazy?
while this is a compelling argument, the other side of the argument is constructed in a way that's hard to overcome with reason.
The response will always be: "So your answer is to kill the innocent baby?"
east
Screwed up... till tha casket drops!!
no but clarence thomas makes clear in his concurrence that contraceptives, anal sex, same-sex relations in the home, and same-sex marriage are on the chopping block next. his legal theory is scary but quite bulletproof, it's pretty much the same he used to decide that children don't have a right to be protected from strip searches for carrying advil:
Supreme Court Says Child’s Rights Violated by Strip Search (Published 2009)
The justices ruled, 8 to 1, that Arizona school officials had insufficient reason to search for prescription drugs in the 13-year-old girl’s undergarments.
Last edited:
Verbal Kint
Superstar
Not at all. But just because people do an illegal thing dangerously doesn't mean it should automatically be legalized so they can do it 'safely'. 'They're going to do it anyway' ain't really a solid reasoning.
To all the “responsibility and consequence” posters:
Why would you want an innocent baby to hold the weight of being someone’s “consequence” for their entire life? That’s not crazy?
They dont want social mobility. They are crabs in a barrel that want to see people suffer along with them. Pay them no credible mind.
One term and trump got 3 judges in there
More than obama
Smh
More than obama
Smh
humminbird
Veteran
just so everyone knows they're coming after contraceptives next.
so it'll really be raw gang out there
so it'll really be raw gang out there
OliviaTwist
All Star
I wouldn’t put it past them to find a way to criminalize that. Plus if you live somewhere in the Deep South it might be too far away
So many people are fukked up because they were born to the wrong mother and father and they talking about consequences.To all the “responsibility and consequence” posters:
Why would you want an innocent baby to hold the weight of being someone’s “consequence” for their entire life? That’s not crazy?
The idea is that people's decision making is influenced by policy. Stricter policy will adjust the behaviors accordingly. We'll see in the coming years what effect this may have. They could be right, or could be wrong.To all the “responsibility and consequence” posters:
Why would you want an innocent baby to hold the weight of being someone’s “consequence” for their entire life? That’s not crazy?