beckiefalwell
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2020
- Posts
- 608
Lizz Winstead talks about Kroger Supermarket;
Want to talk about inflation?
Want to talk about inflation?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not if Trump gets elected.Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.
If that is the case then Women have 100% the right to an abortion if they want one.Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.
Wow. Dishonest much? Can you cut and paste a quote of me saying that? Here's a clue: emotions are not tools of cognition, and your emotions obviously drive every thing you say and do.
Which is preferable, a woman having an abortion, or that women not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?
The "abortion debate" is an asinine logjam. Stepping back to PREVENTION makes that debate moot.
Which you likely already understood, you're just so much of a shill for the liberal agenda, you feel compelled to be a troll.
Yeah, I've repeatedly argued that position.If that is the case then Women have 100% the right to an abortion if they want one.
Even with widespread use of contraception, ready access to legal abortion is important for saving women’s lives. Pregnancy is dangerous. If something goes wrong with fetal development or the mother’s health takes a nosedive, often termination is the only option to save her life or her capacity to have children in the future.Wow. Dishonest much? Can you cut and paste a quote of me saying that? Here's a clue: emotions are not tools of cognition, and your emotions obviously drive every thing you say and do.
Which is preferable, a woman having an abortion, or that women not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?
The "abortion debate" is an asinine logjam. Stepping back to PREVENTION makes that debate moot.
Which you likely already understood, you're just so much of a shill for the liberal agenda, you feel compelled to be a troll.
Says who? This is not a universally accepted principle. If we accepted this, then we shouldn't worry about climate change and environmental despoliation, because the consequences will be felt not by those who live today, primarily, but by those who will live (hypothetically) in the future.
Says who? This is not a universally accepted principle. If we accepted this, then we shouldn't worry about climate change and environmental despoliation, because the consequences will be felt not by those who live today, primarily, but by those who will live (hypothetically) in the future.
Which is preferable? A woman not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.Wow. Dishonest much? Can you cut and paste a quote of me saying that? Here's a clue: emotions are not tools of cognition, and your emotions obviously drive every thing you say and do.
Which is preferable, a woman having an abortion, or that women not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place?
Women have 100% responsibility for pregnancy. It's 100% her body, her right, her choice, her power, her decision, etc. Only an insane person would claim 100% of the latter, but not 100% of the former.
Good clip, but it is a bit jarring seeing Lizz Winstead with white hair.More Lizz Winstead, the creator of the original Daily Show.
Lizz Winstead, not cute.Good clip, but it is a bit jarring seeing Lizz Winstead with white hair.
In my mind's eye, she was still the supercute
Mayhaps. Can we at least agree that Jamie Lee Curtis absolutely rocks white hair?Lizz Winstead, not cute.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead, cute.
I enjoy investigating different points of view. I prefer that they be presented with more civility, learning, and intelligence than they usually are on internet websites.I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.
Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.
That's not pregnancy, that's sex. Men and women have equal responsibility for engaging in sex.Oh, not at all. A guy has to get it up and get it in. THAT is a conscious choice by the male. If he doesn't want a baby, he shouldn't stick it in. 100% his choice. 100% his responsibility. 100% his dick. 100% his sperm.
That's not pregnancy, that's sex. Men and women have equal responsibility for engaging in sex.
Having sex is not agreeing to or consent to have a baby. Unless you're actually against abortion.
I wasn't talking about sex, I was talking about pregnancy, and only pregnancy.Sex results in pregnancy.
You offer an observation. Please, offer a solution. Then the sea lions and sharks can ridicule you like any of the sane and sensible members who stay afloat here.I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.
Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.
You do brand people. You don't ever support a counter rebuttal even when reasoned input. You keep to your biases.I read your posts and consider the content when replying. You align with the political left and your posts indicate that you, while more thoughtful because you attempt to clandestinely convey that you're "above it all" even though it's obvious that you're not when your posts are dissected, have many of the same end goals embraced by the moderate political left. For you, the ideals of the political right are shunned. Not because the ideals are bad, but because those ideals belong to "those people" and therefore cannot be trusted. Which is a slap in the face to your own neighbors and friends.
The needle doesn't move here because this forum, like many, is infested with trolls whose only purpose is to make themselves feel powerful. Laurel refuses to delouse her own creation and that gives the trolls the belief they have power. Of those who actually come here to learn and discuss current events and issues, I have seen several change their opinions. Admittedly I'm one of them who changed for what I believe to be the positive. I've also seen members go full rabid fuckwit in the opposite direction.
I don't "instantly brand" people. I do, however, find that particular trait more prevalent in those who espouse the Leftist viewpoint. One need only review the replies to my posts to see the truth in that.
You are incapable of recognizing Truth. Why should anyone point out the truth when you are incapable of accepting it?These are ALL Leftist talking points. The same rancor, the same words, the same lack of rational, the same hate.
You want to show me that you're not a leftist? Speak truly about Trump and his achievements when he was President. Speak truly about the constant lawfare against the policies he tried to do when in office. Speak truly about which party engages in lawlessness as a matter of course. And speak truly about which party stokes violence as a tactic against the people.
Pick one and speak the truth.
I believed in you! Up to the point you said you were a lawyer! Another Arpy? Damn the sea lions are gonna get eaten fer sure!I don't know what that means. There are plenty of women who share this perspective.
It doesn't bother me, but I think it's a silly thing to say.
There you go. You have to believe it's bad faith. Exactly the problem I was raising.
And if that's so, then the voters of those states are perfectly free to toss out the anti-abortion politicians with those who will vote on laws to protect the rights they want. That's democracy. It's a process, and it doesn't always result in the laws you want. But that doesn't make it undemocratic.
Critics of Roe have, from the very beginning, pointed out that this is exactly what the majority in Roe did: they ignored what the Constitution actually said and made up a right that nobody previously had ever thought it encompassed. Have you read the opinion? I'm a lawyer. I've read it, and thousands--I mean, literally, thousands-- of legal opinions.
Okaaaay. Mr lawyer. I read this three times. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your claim that you want to engage in a legitimate debate. It's been a long time since I've read anything at this erudite level, so forgive my slowness in digesting it in bits and pieces.OK, I'll bite.
What makes a Supreme Court decision on whether something is a right under the Constitution sound?
There are a variety of different interpretive principles we can use to answer the question. Every law student learns these principles in law school.
First, is the claimed right grounded in the text of the Constitution? Nearly every judge and legal scholar I can think of claims that the text is at least important, if not always determinative. You should be able to point to words in the Constitution and make a good-faith argument that the right is grounded in that text.
Second, you can look at statutory history. Why was the text enacted? What was said about it? What was the law meant to do? What was its purpose?
Third, you can look at how the language would have been understood at the time the language was enacted. This is originalism.
Fourth, you can look at the function of the language within the context of the document as a whole. Would interpreting the text in X way create problems for the purpose of the Constitution? Would you be opening the gate to arguments about rights that might seem outlandish (i.e., does a right over one's body mean one has a constitutional right to ingest cocaine?).
Fifth, you can look at precedent. What legal precedents support acknowledging the right in question? How strong are they and how long have they been recognized? Would the decision upset existing precedents (thereby violating the principle of stare decisis)?
Sixth, you can look at evolving societal standards. For example, a narrow historical reading of the 8th amendment might mean recognition of methods of torture or punishment that nearly all people today would disapprove of. Probably most judges take this into account even if they don't always admit they do.
You don't have to be a strict textualist, originalist, or formalist to take these interpretive principles seriously to at least some extent. Nearly every single judicial decision I've read (I've read thousands) uses some combination of these principles to determine whether a decision is right or wrong.
One thing most people acknowledge is not appropriate: a judge doesn't get to just say, "Damn the law, I think X is the right result and I'm going to rule that way regardless of what the law says." Most judges, lawyers, and scholars would say that's not "right," and feel some duty to make their decision fit with the law, even if some realists among them might concede that some decisions do, in fact, get decided that way. I personally think that's too cynical. I think most judges try to get an answer that they believe is "right" while also trying to base their reasoning on interpretive principles that give their decision legitimacy and weight. A judge is not supposed to be a super-legislator who overrules the law just because he or she personally disagrees with it, no matter how strongly they feel.
Roe is a weak opinion by virtually all of these principles. It's based on the Fifth Amendment, but there's nothing in the Fifth Amendment language of Due Process that refers specifically or even generally to a right of abortion, or even the broader right of privacy that its predecessor decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, enunciated. There's nothing in the statutory history of the Fifth Amendment that refers to abortion. Nobody in 1791 or 1865 would have understood the language to include this right. Finding a right of abortion in the Fifth Amendment opens up the interpretation of the language to other broad "privacy" rights, such as the right to take recreational drugs, based on a theory of privacy and right over one's body, which many would find objectionable. The legal precedent for the abortion right was weak. Griswold, which created a constitutional right to contraception, was probably the least textually tethered case in US Constitutional history; Justice Douglas openly said he wasn't trying to find it within any specific language, but only within the broad "penumbras" of constitutional language. And as far as societal standards, as of the time Roe became law there was no clear consensus on abortion; most states had laws that were more restrictive than what Roe required, so Roe in its day was not in any way a "democratic" opinion that represented a consensus of societal standards. It was ahead of its time from the standpoint of public opinion.
If you want a more thorough discussion of the topic than I can give in this thread then I recommend going on line and finding the Dobbs opinion and reading Alito's analysis of Roe, which I mostly agree with, and read John Hart Ely's essay The Wages of Crying Wolf, and if you want a more thorough discussion of the issue of Supreme Court legitimacy read Ely's book Democracy and Distrust. Of course, if you read the Dobbs dissent you'll get a lengthy rebuttal to Alito's analysis, so you should read that too. I read both and I found Alito's analysis much more persuasive, although I am pro-choice.
If people disagree with me about Roe, that's fine. I won't call them stupid and I won't accuse them of bad faith. But don't accuse me of bad faith, either, and don't try to assert the obviously false statement that reasonable people cannot have legitimate differences in point of view about abortion, Roe, and Dobbs. Obviously, they can.