Forseen consequenses

[Tunnelcat]

I knew this was going to happen and was wondering how long it would take before a State Legislature or a Democratic governor modeled a new anti-gun law in the image of Texas' new vigilante backed anti-abortion law, a law that the SCOTUS just allowed to stand for the moment too. Oh what a conundrum. People are already saying: "But it's different, the 2nd Amendment protects gun ownership in the U.S. and abortion isn't protected by the Constitution". Wrong. They seem to forget that the 14th Amendment protects a woman's right to an abortion. What goes around comes around you insipid idiot Conservatives. Are all your heads up your collective asses? You can't have your cake and eat it too, which pisses me off as a gun owner (and perhaps Grendel too if he still lives here) since I live in a state where our Dem governor may just jump on the Newsom bandwagon. What's good for conservatives is now good for liberals. You want to ban abortion, fine. Just come out and call it murder, period, and defend THAT before SCOTUS. But be prepared to take some heat when U.S. women everywhere declare a revolution. Just don't come up with these stupid backdoor state laws that subvert FEDERAL protections afforded all Americans under the Constitution by taking law enforcement out of the hands of the chickenshit lawmakers and handing it over to vigilante citizens with visions of large bounties on their minds as incentives.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/12/10634899 ... ortion-law

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/12/12/ ... tion-bill/

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans late Saturday to create a new California assault weapons ban that would be insulated from many types of legal challenge, using as a model a controversial Texas abortion law the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week.

And constitutional scholars said Sunday that Newsom’s approach may well be sound.

Newsom is seeking to incorporate an innovative legal mechanism adopted by conservative Texas state leaders, who imposed abortion restrictions enforced not by government but by private citizens. Under the law, citizens can file civil suits against doctors and clinics who perform abortions — and because state regulators are not involved in the enforcement process, abortion defenders are limited in their ability to sue the state to challenge it.

[Ferno]

I think this is just hilarious.

And what's going to be more hilarious is we're going to see woody come in here any moment now, screaming about 'libtards' and whatnot while completely missing the irony.

[Vander]

You make it sound like this court would act in good faith and with consistency if California tailored such a bill like Texas.

[Tunnelcat]

Which is why SCOTUS will eventually strike down the Texas law but uphold the Mississippi law, for now. They wouldn't want to look like Constitutional hypocrites making politicized legal decisions, unless I'm seriously wrong about Trump's hand picked justices, which I could be in this case.

[Ferno]

And I'm just going to sit here and laugh my ass off at it. It sure beats the alternative.

[Krom]

Democrats should exploit this loophole for everything it is worth, make it as painful as possible. Either Democrats succeed and actually reach an enforceable total weapons ban, or more likely Republicans are forced to close the loophole and lose their abortion ban.

[Ferno]

I'm willing to bet the republicans will dig their heels right in like an alabama tick, and suffer the blows when the dems actually pass that legislation.

[LightWolf]

They seem to forget that the 14th Amendment protects a woman's right to an abortion.

Let's analyze, shall we?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

I assume you're referring to this clause. There is nothing in the constitution which defines abortion as a privilege, so the courts have to look elsewhere for that. The constitution does not expressly provide for an abortion anywhere.

Also keep in mind when and why it was written - it was about preventing southern states from implementing racist policy; I do not believe most people believed in abortion at the time. If the anti-abortion side is smart, they will raise this point, meaning justices who interpret by original intent will be far more likely to side with them.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Here's the real kicker - provided the anti-abortion side can successfully argue a fetus is, in fact, a person, the 14th amendment expressly forbids legalized abortion.

[Tunnelcat]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... on/620600/

[LightWolf]

Fair enough with the 9th amendment, I guess this will come down to whether a fetus is a person.

[Vander]

Trump's hand picked justices

He was given a list of names collected by the Federalist Society, and told who to nominate and when. Though that mental image makes me think of this:

Either Democrats succeed and actually reach an enforceable total weapons ban, or more likely Republicans are forced to close the loophole and lose their abortion ban.

The court can pretty much decide when and where their loophole applies. In 2000, they said the different ways counties count votes violates the 14th Amendment, but specifically said it didn't apply to any other case. Why wouldn’t the court just do some one-off ruling striking down whatever CA ends up doing? What's anyone going to do about it?

I think if you’re going to mimic Texas, don’t go into it thinking you’re going to get away with it. Do it to maximally expose hypocrisy. I also think attempting this gambit with something like assault weapons will lead to violence.

[Tunnelcat]

Fair enough with the 9th amendment, I guess this will come down to whether a fetus is a person.

That's the issue. When is a fetus a person? I can't even answer that, but I'm going to have to agree that sucking something out of a womb that looks like a baby is horrendous. However, is it a baby once the 2 gametes get together during conception and form the zygote containing all the genetic programming to become a human, or only after a certain amount of growth and it starts looking like a human being during the gestation period? Many of these conservative states are attempting to push that point closer and closer to the actual conception, so close that a woman can't even tell she's pregnant. Some people even believe that the separate gametes constitute a potential human being and even those shouldn't be interfered with by using contraception. You have to remember that it's the woman who has to carry the fetus, not the man. She's using her body as an incubator for 9 months, not the man. She has to go through the extreme pain and even possibility of death during gestation and birth, not the man. She also has to pay to keep her body alive and healthy during that time, not the man. Do you see a trend here? So at what point does the government tell that woman that removing that fetus at any point during it's gestation period is murder? At what point does a government infringe upon a woman's right to privacy between her and her doctor or even her own reproductive freedom?

The best solution would be to have free contraception and easy availability of a morning after pill, so that NO WOMAN gets pregnant after unprotected sex when they don't want to actually have a baby. But the human sex drive and people's idiocy is what it is and unwanted pregnancies will still occur. Maybe we should chemically neuter men until they are wiling to support and raise a baby and put some of the responsibility of pregnancy on them as well? A lot of them cut and run. They are the second half of this equation too and I don't see anti-abortion foes saying squat about that. How would men like the prospect of the government forcing chemical castration on men in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies? I'm willing to bet that would go over like a lead balloon. Heaven forbid a man loses the ability to be fertile, even temporarily. Besides, even if SCOTUS supports Mississippi's case and overturns Texas', other states can still provide abortion services in this country and I'm willing to bet that if we get a full Conservative government some day in the future, abortion will be outlawed federally in ALL states. I'm even willing to bet a conservative government would go so far as to outlaw even contraception as well. How's that for "freedom"?

As to the 2nd Amendment protecting gun rights, even it has a murky history and contradictory definitions. First off, absolutely NONE of the crazy militias currently running around the U.S. these days are regulated by the states nor are they members of the National Guard. Militias were supposed to be a state's protection against a tyrannical federal government. However, most of the current militias are unregulated groups loosely bound by either fascist tendencies, racist white supremacy and Antisemitism. They are not sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment and are technically illegal, and yet they parade around armed to the teeth like they're patriots. NOT. Then you've got the South's slave history and the 2nd Amendment. The South wanted to maintain slavery and protect themselves against a slave revolt. The Southern States would have never ratified the 2nd Amendment if it actually gave the right to bear arms to ALL people, including slaves. So that's where the "well regulated militias" section was added. They didn't want a bunch of slaves arming themselves and starting a freedom revolt. They only wanted white people to have arms, and so made sure to add that passage. The way it's worded to this day is still contradictory. Can everyone can bear arms without that right being infringed upon by the federal government, or only those who are white and join a regulated militia like the States National Guards? You tell me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... nstitution

[LightWolf]

However, is it a baby once the 2 gametes get together during conception and form the zygote containing all the genetic programming to become a human, or only after a certain amount of growth and it starts looking like a human being during the gestation period? Many of these conservative states are attempting to push that point closer and closer to the actual conception, so close that a woman can't even tell she's pregnant. Some people even believe that the separate gametes constitute a potential human being and even those shouldn't be interfered with by using contraception.

"Looking like" is a highly subjective position, which is why many laws try to use a more definable point, i.e. the famous two-week heartbeat laws. Babies are known to have functional developing organs such as a heart and brain by 6-7 weeks. I would argue that for sure by this point a baby should be considered a person. Personally I subscribe to the conception theory (which, fun fact, does not mean immediately after sex) because by that point the mother's and father's DNA have joined together and the embryo has begun its own development process, largely independent of the mother apart from food, shelter, and hormone supplements which serve in large part to make the womb more hospitable. For this same reason, I do not accept the theory that separate gametes constitute a person - the separate DNA has not joined and no development has begun. There isn't even a fetal cell at this point.

You have to remember that it's the woman who has to carry the fetus, not the man. She's using her body as an incubator for 9 months, not the man. She has to go through the extreme pain and even possibility of death during gestation and birth, not the man. She also has to pay to keep her body alive and healthy during that time, not the man. Do you see a trend here? So at what point does the government tell that woman that removing that fetus at any point during it's gestation period is murder? At what point does a government infringe upon a woman's right to privacy between her and her doctor or even her own reproductive freedom?

I will answer the second half now, and the first half when I discuss the role of men.

Essentially, murder is murder. If you actively kill a defenseless person, you are committing murder. End of story. The only issue is that people cannot agree on is whether the fetus is or is not a person - this is an issue of fact, not freedom. Freedom is about the ability to choose or abstain a given action. Society has already decided and government affirmed, through both law and constitution, that people do not have the freedom to murder. Fact is simply about what is; killing a fetus either is or is not murder.

The best solution would be to have free contraception and easy availability of a morning after pill, so that NO WOMAN gets pregnant after unprotected sex when they don't want to actually have a baby. But the human sex drive and people's idiocy is what it is and unwanted pregnancies will still occur.

Free by whom? I have no problem with these - I don't even mind the morning after pill, provided it targets fertilization, not implantation - but I do not believe the government should be involved in making these free. There are already many private entities offering these things completely free of charge on their own; why not follow their example?

Maybe we should chemically neuter men until they are wiling to support and raise a baby and put some of the responsibility of pregnancy on them as well? A lot of them cut and run. They are the second half of this equation too and I don't see anti-abortion foes saying squat about that. How would men like the prospect of the government forcing chemical castration on men in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies? I'm willing to bet that would go over like a lead balloon. Heaven forbid a man loses the ability to be fertile, even temporarily.

Alright, time for the part about men.

I actually don't have an issue with chemical neutering of men, provided it is completely voluntary, just like birth control for women. I do have a problem with forced castration or sterilization for both men and women. I dare you to talk about the government forcing sterilization on women to prevent unwanted pregnances.

I do happen to agree that men have a responsibility for the child, both before and after birth. It is 50% their DNA, after all. Enforcing they take 50% of the child's financial responsibility, especially if they cut and run, would probably stop a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and even serve to curb cases of rape. So yes, 50% DNA, 50% responsibility.

Besides, even if SCOTUS supports Mississippi's case and overturns Texas', other states can still provide abortion services in this country and I'm willing to bet that if we get a full Conservative government some day in the future, abortion will be outlawed federally in ALL states. I'm even willing to bet a conservative government would go so far as to outlaw even contraception as well. How's that for "freedom"?

Your 'full Conservative government' would only be able to do so if the court strongly defines abortion as murder, rather than simply finding states are allowed to regulate it in such a manner. As for the contraception argument, I have high doubts about that; there are very few groups who oppose contraception. The main group I can think of are Catholics, which are a minority among Christians. Maybe regionally this may occur, but never at a state or federal level, at least not any time soon.

As to the 2nd Amendment protecting gun rights, even it has a murky history and contradictory definitions. First off, absolutely NONE of the crazy militias currently running around the U.S. these days are regulated by the states nor are they members of the National Guard. Militias were supposed to be a state's protection against a tyrannical federal government. However, most of the current militias are unregulated groups loosely bound by either fascist tendencies, racist white supremacy and Antisemitism. They are not sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment and are technically illegal, and yet they parade around armed to the teeth like they're patriots. NOT. Then you've got the South's slave history and the 2nd Amendment. The South wanted to maintain slavery and protect themselves against a slave revolt. The Southern States would have never ratified the 2nd Amendment if it actually gave the right to bear arms to ALL people, including slaves. So that's where the "well regulated militias" section was added. They didn't want a bunch of slaves arming themselves and starting a freedom revolt. They only wanted white people to have arms, and so made sure to add that passage. The way it's worded to this day is still contradictory. Can everyone can bear arms without that right being infringed upon by the federal government, or only those who are white and join a regulated militia like the States National Guards? You tell me.

Last I checked, slave-owning states didn't even fully consider slaves as people and rammed that assumption into any parts of the constitution they saw relevant. Otherwise, the 8th Amendment would have likely been cause for concern. Or how about the fifth amendment? Ninth? Tenth? I'm also willing to bet that any white southerner not in a militia would have gotten quite angry had someone come for their guns. So no, the right to bear arms was not limited to militias. (I will say I am surprised that people who demonstrated a good command of English wrote such a grammatically weird clause.) The only reason this right was denied to blacks was because they were not considered citizens, people, or anything else protected under the constitution. (There is the 3/5 clause, a compromise where the southern states wanted to classify slaves as people for representation purposes; that was just those states being massive hypocrites. The only reason a compromise was even necessary was because the north called them out on it.)

[woodchip]

Democrats should exploit this loophole for everything it is worth, make it as painful as possible. Either Democrats succeed and actually reach an enforceable total weapons ban, or more likely Republicans are forced to close the loophole and lose their abortion ban.

Only pain felt will be by the unborn.

[woodchip]

I knew this was going to happen and was wondering how long it would take before a State Legislature or a Democratic governor modeled a new anti-gun law in the image of Texas' new vigilante backed anti-abortion law, a law that the SCOTUS just allowed to stand for the moment too. Oh what a conundrum. People are already saying: "But it's different, the 2nd Amendment protects gun ownership in the U.S. and abortion isn't protected by the Constitution". Wrong. They seem to forget that the 14th Amendment protects a woman's right to an abortion. What goes around comes around you insipid idiot Conservatives. Are all your heads up your collective asses? You can't have your cake and eat it too, which pisses me off as a gun owner (and perhaps Grendel too if he still lives here) since I live in a state where our Dem governor may just jump on the Newsom bandwagon. What's good for conservatives is now good for liberals. You want to ban abortion, fine. Just come out and call it murder, period, and defend THAT before SCOTUS. But be prepared to take some heat when U.S. women everywhere declare a revolution. Just don't come up with these stupid backdoor state laws that subvert FEDERAL protections afforded all Americans under the Constitution by taking law enforcement out of the hands of the chickenshit lawmakers and handing it over to vigilante citizens with visions of large bounties on their minds as incentives.

:

Well you should be more concerned if SCOTUS repeals roe v wade. And women everywhere will not declare a revolution as over half don't believe in r.vs w. .
Vigilante groups are in your home town, like BLM and they have done more damage than any Texas group can hope to do (and please do not prattle on with the canard you learned from CNN and NPR that the damage was inflicted by scary redneck groups. As to back door groups, there will be plenty of Sanctuary States for abortion like Virginia where even late term abortion will be embraced (except) now they have a republican Governor.

[Top Gun]

He really is stroking out isn't he?

[Tunnelcat]

Let me see woody. The other day while driving in town a guy in a pickup truck drove by me sporting 2 large flags on a tall rod in back. One of those flags was a Confederate Flag waving in the breeze like it was a banner of pride. Now tell me why African Americans in my town watching this idiot drive by with his giant Confederate ★■◆● you finger shouldn't feel any kind of loathing or hate towards him?

[woodchip]

TC should Caucasians feel safer if they see a BLM flag, would a shop owner whose business was burned to the ground feel safer? It's all in ones perspective.

[Top Gun]

If I saw a BLM flag I'd cheer.

[Tunnelcat]

TC should Caucasians feel safer if they see a BLM flag, would a shop owner whose business was burned to the ground feel safer? It's all in ones perspective.

Lets just say that as a liberal leaning white person, I'm more afraid of some Proud Boy driving around in his giant black smoke belching pickup truck sporting loaded gun racks and displaying the Confederate Flag as a symbol of violent racist white pride, also a symbol of a nasty Civil War they lost that needs correcting, somehow figuring out that I'm an evil heathen liberal who stole the election thus requiring I get the ★■◆● kicked out of me as punishment no matter what color I am because his favorite idiot leader in hiding, Donald J. Trump, said to go out and bash all liberals like rats during most of his screaming boner rallies eons ago put on WHILE he was in office representing the country I live in and cherish (run on sentence intended).

[Ferno]

Only pain felt will be by the unborn.

Garbage

TC should Caucasians feel safer if they see a BLM flag, would a shop owner whose business was burned to the ground feel safer? It's all in ones perspective.

★■◆● your whataboutism.

------------

TC: Don't post such long responses to woodchip. He won't understand, will misinterpret and will twist your words. Use as short of a sentence as possible. The less he has, the less he can try and use against you. And the less aggravation you have to deal with. Remember: He's MAGA. To deal with MAGAs, such as him, you need to deny him information and confront what he says.

[Tunnelcat]

I figured a run on sentence would be sufficient, but we'll see. Maybe woody wants to see a return of the Confederacy? He hasn't objected to people displaying that flag so far here other than to point to the other tribe's (BLM) flag as bad, the same tribe the Confederacy brutally enslaved just to run their stupid economy hundreds of years ago. A couple of my white neighbors display the BLM flag and others display the police support Blue and Black Line flag. I see no issue if people want to express their politics. But the Confederate Flag should be banned and burned in this country. It's truly evil and a stake in the heart of every African American in this country.

[Vander]

Remember: He's MAGA.

To be fair, woodchip has been pretty much the same for 20 years on here. He's not MAGA, MAGA is him.

[Ferno]

Remember: He's MAGA.

To be fair, woodchip has been pretty much the same for 20 years on here. He's not MAGA, MAGA is him.

Is there a difference?

If we drew up a Venn diagram and him, they'd just be a circle.