6 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Here's my take... This ruling is disgusting, despicable and just plain wrong. There's absolutely no reason or excuse for there to be a law that prevents women doing what they feel is necessary to their bodies.

It's a good thing you don't live in an over regulated country then right?

Over here our federal judicial system just handed down a decision that our federal government had no business being involved in it.

Just now, lynched1 said:

It's a good thing you don't live in an over regulated country then right?

The US seems to be taking steps back though. I love the US, my brother lives there and is very happy there but it is taking steps back. 

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

The US seems to be taking steps back though. I love the US, my brother lives there and is very happy there but it is taking steps back. 

Sometimes you have to step back to go forward.

2 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Sometimes you have to step back to go forward.

This is not a step back that was needed though. 

5 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

This is not a step back that was needed though. 

Difference between need and desired. 

The federal government by our laws has it's constraints. It overstepped it's boundary. Here and in other matters.

In this matter they previously made an admittedly poor ruling knowing it wouldn't survive a proper challenge. I would propose due to outside events going on back in the late 60's early 70's.

Our politicians decided that enriching themselves was far more important than fixing the problem. They've had five decades and you'll take notice to a complete lack of contingencies.

In the end the states will sort it out by necessity. Even the reddest of states will have to address reality even if they don't go as far as making the lifestyle choice of say California. 

5 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

The US seems to be taking steps back though. I love the US, my brother lives there and is very happy there but it is taking steps back. 

All depends what you consider "forward” doesnt it?

european style collectivism is what i call backwards. No desire for the US to devolve into that.

now this ruling is a mess bc the court dropped the ball the first time and invented a law where none had been written

On 7/1/2022 at 4:04 PM, DrPhilly said:

When were you there?

First in 1988 - Last in 2002-There was a night club called Planet Ios we went to in 2002.  I dont think it is still around. 

10 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Here's my take... This ruling is disgusting, despicable and just plain wrong. There's absolutely no reason or excuse for there to be a law that prevents women doing what they feel is necessary to their bodies.

Just to be factual, SCOTUS did not rule to make abortions illegal, they kicked it back to the states to decide for themselves. 

On 6/28/2022 at 7:04 PM, TEW said:

Birth rates are below replacement levels currently. An extra million babies would help that.

My wife and I had a girl and a boy then I got snipped...

 

4 hours ago, Ipiggles said:

First in 1988 - Last in 2002-There was a night club called Planet Ios we went to in 2002.  I dont think it is still around. 

When I went the party was in the town until about midnight and then they pushed everyone out to a couple big outdoor places that looked out over the sea. Think one is called Scorpions and it looks like it is still there. That’s where I had my little "couldn’t speak episode”. 

10 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Yeah one’s a shot that lasts a few seconds and the other is raising a kid.  

19 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah one’s a shot that lasts a few seconds and the other is raising a kid.  

Pregnancies also aren't contagious.

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah one’s a shot that lasts a few seconds and the other is raising a kid.  

Wow, I’ll bet no one else ever thought of it that way. Your idea to prioritize which constitutional rights can be temporarily suspended based on how long the suspension will last should be the end of the argument altogether.

10 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Wow, I’ll bet no one else ever thought of it that way. Your idea to prioritize which constitutional rights can be temporarily suspended based on how long the suspension will last should be the end of the argument altogether.

Comparing getting a shot to having a kid is like comparing a backyard nerf gun battle to World War 2.  

7 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Comparing getting a shot to having a kid is like comparing a backyard nerf gun battle to World War 2.  

I know, right? It’s not like we’re learning about longer term consequences of the vaccines on certain people as time goes on.

1 minute ago, The_Omega said:

I know, right? It’s not like we’re learning about longer term consequences of the vaccines on certain people as time goes on.

Moss is challenging you to a nerf gun duel. 

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah one’s a shot that lasts a few seconds and the other is raising a kid.  

Irrelevant. Read the words.

 

1 minute ago, The_Omega said:

I know, right? It’s not like we’re learning about longer term consequences of the vaccines on certain people as time goes on.

Well, I’m feeling kind of funny today.  Must be the shot I got 18 months ago.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Well, I’m feeling kind of funny today.  Must be the shot I got 18 months ago.

You feeling well enough to win the duel?  Gotta pick your spot dude.

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Pregnancies also aren't contagious.

So they don't effect a life outside of their own?

@Dave Moss Don't be confused by the fact that he looks old, he's a wily one.  Wear your Nets shirt to confuse him.

10 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Moss is challenging you to a nerf gun duel. 

12 hours ago, lynched1 said:

If you were screaming about not wanting to put experimental drugs in your body because it was your body your choice then I don’t wanna hear from you now about people not wanting rape babies in their bodies.  
 

two can play at that game bruh. 

Pregnancy checkpoints