Ocasio-Cortez, other House Democrats arrested in Supreme Court abortion rights protest

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
Like I said, 'What's important are our whataboutism and deflection... and that you don't think we're monsters for backing these anti-abortion laws 100%.'
I never stated I backed the law you cited. I stated I disagreed with the analysis of the law that was provided that claimed the law allows for someone to kill a pregnant woman who wanted to get an abortion. The "if necessary" part would catch someone who tried anything like that.

TBH, the wording of that law could certainly give the impression that a person could do that, which is why I think that law as it is written is stupid. The only thing that is needed is to state that a person has a legal right to life that begins at conception. Once you establish that, their existing self defence laws would be a much better way of implementing it.
 
Last edited:

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,239
Like I said, 'What's important are our whataboutism and deflection... and that you don't think we're monsters for backing these anti-abortion laws 100%.'
iu
 

TheMightyQuinn

Not amused...
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
31,961

TheMightyQuinn

Not amused...
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
31,961
Several House Democrats were arrested on Tuesday while protesting outside the Supreme Court over its decision to overturn constitutional protections for abortion access.

The group of Democratic lawmakers and others marched over to the high court from the Capitol while chanting "we won't go back" and "our body our choice" -- the latest demonstration after five conservative justices ruled last month to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that first legalized abortions nationwide.

Seventeen lawmakers in total were arrested, according to Capitol Police, including Reps. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and Illinois' Jan Schakowsky. The charge was crowding, obstructing or incommoding, police said.





AOC and OMAR...this is the future of US "lawmaking".

There isn't enough popcorn for this shitshow.....:ROFL:
 

TheMightyQuinn

Not amused...
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
31,961
AOC and The Squad are Acting on behest of the DNC.

All the SCOTUS did was move the issue of Abortion back to the State Level. People who live in California can still have Abortions and people who live in more Conservative States can go to places where they can get Abortions.

For 50 years Roe vs Wade has been around and the Democrats have had full control of Government more than once during that period but have never codified the issue into law because they don't want to. Why? Is it because otherwise they'll have nothing to run on come election time.

Don't post facts here please...emotional diatribes only.

Then again: it does give @theratman an opportunity to post his favorite, albeit desperate, little LoL.
 

TheMightyQuinn

Not amused...
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
31,961
We also all know that devolving this to the states is removing people's choice and options. It's ludicrous to think that everyone can afford to travel to another state for the procedure. That's before considering that various states have or will make it illegal to travel elsewhere to have it done.
Cannot afford a busride....but can afford to raise a child.

:unsure:
 

adrianx

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
3,761
If mothers have the right to abort because they don't want the child, then surely fathers have the right to not pay maintenance if they don't want to.
 

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
29,703
If mothers have the right to abort because they don't want the child, then surely fathers have the right to not pay maintenance if they don't want to.
Using that logic you can then force someone into having an abortion by abandoning someone after impregnating them.
You should rather use the counter logic - in order to reduce the amount of abortions you should make the biological father 50% responsible for the wellbeing of the child. In the case of rape 100%.

Abortion rights are about the autonomy of the mother to chose what happens to her own body. Its not got much to do with the responsibilities of the father.
 

Emjay

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
15,016
You have them in SA. They are in the ANC and EFF.

Every single policy you like in the Democrats, you can find in the ANC.
BEE
Affirmative action.
Nationalised healthcare.
Gun control.
State owned power companies.

The Progressives in the USA dream about having a Constitution like South Africa. Must hurt when they realize what a failure it is.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
Using that logic you can then force someone into having an abortion by abandoning someone after impregnating them.
You should rather use the counter logic - in order to reduce the amount of abortions you should make the biological father 50% responsible for the wellbeing of the child. In the case of rape 100%.

Abortion rights are about the autonomy of the mother to chose what happens to her own body. Its not got much to do with the responsibilities of the father.
Biological fathers are already 100% responsible for the wellbeing of the child.
 

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
29,703
In the US and SA.

In the US, the courts even go so far as forcing a non-biological father to pay child support.
https://mtlawoffice.com/news/you-are-not-the-father-but-you-may-still-have-to-pay-child-support
That article speaks to something else.... basically if the man acted as a father to the child at any point.
Its got nothing to do with someone who randomly has sex with a woman and then abandons her.

The circumstances under which a man may be held to pay child support, even though he is not the biological father, are as follows:

  1. The man promised the child and the child’s mother that he would assume all obligations and responsibilities of fatherhood, including providing support;
  2. The man held himself out as the father of the child and allowed the child to consider him as the biological father; and
  3. The mother and child relied upon the promise to their detriment (one important factor here would be if the mother did not seek child support from the biological father based upon a reliance on the promise made by the man that he would support the child).

The thing is - is this upheld. Because often its not.
 
Top