Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[CrowFlies]

who are these men telling Me what i can and cant do with my....MY....body.
again...Not theirs but Mine.

btw....it was MY body long before it was their capitalist shop till you drop tax paying entity.

 

[Farb]

By virtue of you asking I'm going to assume a state where those things exist? And, if so, I'd suggest they need to be increased if they let someone like him get through.

He was from Cali. Cali has those laws. They were not just enacted. So no, I won't give up any more of my rights because the bureaucracy that runs everything sucks at their job.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

He was from Cali. Cali has those laws. They were not just enacted. So no, I won't give up any more of my rights because the bureaucracy that runs everything sucks at their job.

Your rights are defined by the United States Supreme Court and even Scalia found that 2nd Amendment Rights are not without limitation.

 

[Taurus]

Your rights are defined by the United States Supreme Court and even Scalia found that 2nd Amendment Rights are not without limitation.

Defined, maybe. NOT granted.

9th Amendment of the Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Thought this was interesting.

 

[Farb]

Your rights are defined by the United States Supreme Court and even Scalia found that 2nd Amendment Rights are not without limitation.

And I disagree with Scalia.

 

[DaveXA]

And I disagree with Scalia.

So...is it your position that guns shouldn't be regulated at all?

 

[Farb]

Thought this was interesting.

So who wins in the tug of war between the Jewish faith and the Catholic faith? Are you saying a religious group should be able to make the laws in a free and open society? (I might agree with you on this)

 

[Farb]

So...is it your position that guns shouldn't be regulated at all?

That is correct. Granted, there is a lot of work to be done to get to that point.

 

[brandon]

Are you saying a religious group should be able to make the laws in a free and open society? (I might agree with you on this)

The establishment clause prevents the state favoring one religion over another. The only way to resolve two religions with opposing views on a law fairly is for the law to remain secular.

 

[DaveXA]

That is correct. Granted, there is a lot of work to be done to get to that point.

So, you're OK with a 10 year old buying a gun sight unseen? Because that's what an unregulated gun market would allow for.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So who wins in the tug of war between the Jewish faith and the Catholic faith? Are you saying a religious group should be able to make the laws in a free and open society? (I might agree with you on this)

This particular synagogue is not attempting to make laws. They are saying that a law infringes on their religious beliefs.

 

[Farb]

So, you're OK with a 10 year old buying a gun sight unseen? Because that's what an unregulated gun market would allow for.

I would never recommend buying a gun sight unseen. I have to put my hands on one before I buy it. Fit and comfort is mega important. But I know that is not what you meant, I was being funny.
Sure, with parental permission, why not? My kid had a gun at 12.

 

[DaveXA]

I would never recommend buying a gun sight unseen. I have to put my hands on one before I buy it. Fit and comfort is mega important. But I know that is not what you meant, I was being funny.
Sure, with parental permission, why not? My kid had a gun at 12.

So, you need parental permission if you're a minor, then it's not unregulated. Fwiw, there aren't many things sold that are completely unregulated.

 

[Farb]

This particular synagogue is not attempting to make laws. They are saying that a law infringes on their religious beliefs.

So you guys are for religious exemptions now? Does it matter to you? Some religions want believe in sacrificing animals, is that to allowed too for the sake of religious beliefs?

 

[Farb]

So, you need parental permission if you're a minor, then it's not unregulated. Fwiw, there aren't many things sold that are completely unregulated.

I get that. Can a minor walk in a buy a TV? Not sure.
I have no problem with age regulation for purchase of a gun to 18. I don't see a legal reason to limit what type of gun (semi vs. auto), magazine compacity, or caliber I can own. I also have no issue with background checks and felons should not be allowed to own a weapon. So I am ok with a little regulation, but the problem with a little regulation always slippery slopes into more and more so my stance is no regulation.

Kind of like negotiating, start high and 'settle' for what you really wanted all along.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So you guys are for religious exemptions now? Does it matter to you? Some religions want believe in sacrificing animals, is that to allowed too for the sake of religious beliefs?

Religious exemptions are almost completely unnecessary when the laws are secular. There is no compelling secular case for restricting a woman's bodily autonomy.

 

[Farb]

Religious exemptions are almost completely unnecessary when the laws are secular. There is no compelling secular case for restricting a woman's bodily autonomy.

Except to protect the life of a separate human growing inside of the woman that with the aid of a male, produced him.