On 5/3/2022 4:21 PM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-05-03 6:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On May 3, 2022 at 2:14:51 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/3/2022 1:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>   In article <t4rvnu$uob$3@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>   On 5/3/2022 11:24 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>   In article <2up27hladb7rea30c3sdus1gku95kjl0r5@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>      shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   On Tue, 03 May 2022 10:26:02 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   In article <7ps17hdbso4dghlmpe6hej1j5qe9ne9t9a@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>   shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   On Tue, 03 May 2022 02:50:29 -0500, BTR1701
>>>>>>>>> <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   On 5/2/2022 9:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   Politico is reporting that they have come into possession
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a leaked
>>>>>>>>>>>>   copy of Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson
>>>>>>>>>>>> Women’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>   Health,
>>>>>>>>>>>>   which indicates the Court has five votes to overturn Roe
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Casey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   If it's a legitimate copy of the opinion, this leak is
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing short
>>>>>>>>>>>>   of
>>>>>>>>>>>>   breathtaking. It would constitute one of the greatest
>>>>>>>>>>>> breaches of
>>>>>>>>>>>>   security in the history of the Supreme Court and
>>>>>>>>>>>> represents the
>>>>>>>>>>>>   greatest crisis that Chief Justice Roberts has faced in
>>>>>>>>>>>> his tenure
>>>>>>>>>>>>   on the Court. It is a breach of the most fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>> obligations and
>>>>>>>>>>>>   traditions of the Court.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   It is also hard not to view this as a malicious act. What
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>   motivation for leaking the decision? The only intent of
>>>>>>>>>>>> such an act
>>>>>>>>>>>>   is to trigger a response from outside of the Court. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> most likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>   motivation is obviously to pressure justices to change
>>>>>>>>>>>> their votes
>>>>>>>>>>>>   and push the legislation in Congress on a federal abortion
>>>>>>>>>>>> law before
>>>>>>>>>>>>   the midterm elections. It will also likely renew the call
>>>>>>>>>>>> for court
>>>>>>>>>>>>   packing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   My first thought, after being appalled on behalf of all
>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. women of
>>>>>>>>>>>   childbearing age, is that this could give the Dems a
>>>>>>>>>>> significant boost
>>>>>>>>>>>   in the midterms, in the form of millions of indignant females.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   It'll be hilarious when "storming the Capitol" suddenly
>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>>   justifiable act of civil disobedience in the next few weeks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   If by "Storming" you mean peaceful protests then I have no
>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>   with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   When you say 'peaceful protests', do you mean the same kind of
>>>>>>>> protests
>>>>>>>>   that filled most of the summer of 2020, which we were
>>>>>>>> repeatedly assured
>>>>>>>>   by the media and leftist politicians were peaceful even as the
>>>>>>>> cities
>>>>>>>>   were burning in the background?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Yes, I mean the peaceful protests and not those riots or thefts
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>   were ongoing at the same time. It's not the first time that people
>>>>>>>   took advantage of protests to act out against whomever they
>>>>>>> feel has
>>>>>>>   wronged them. That doesn't mean the protests weren't peaceful
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Okay, whatever, dude. The people marching down Melrose and Santa
>>>>>> Monica
>>>>>>   Blvd in L.A. chanting "No justice, no peace" were the same ones
>>>>>> hurling
>>>>>>   bricks through storefronts and lighting cars on fire. I saw it
>>>>>> with my
>>>>>>   own eyes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I refuse to be gaslit about this, either by you or our precious,
>>>>>>   precious journalists.
>>>>>
>>>>>   The BLM protests in my town were peaceful. It only got out of
>>>>> hand in a
>>>>>   few places out of the dozens or hundreds that didn't.
>>>>   That doesn't change the fact that the media and the politicians were
>>>>   trying to sell the lie that the burning cities were the result of
>>>>   'mostly peaceful' protests.
>>>
>>> But most of the protests WERE peaceful. That's not a lie.
>>
>> Leftist social media is already awash in calls for violence, to include
>> violence against the justices of the Court.
>>
>>
>> https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1521588874077609984?s=20&t=ePcwLxjVl0p9hGb0go8QWg
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, none of those people could bust a grape in a fruit
>> fight,
>> so maybe it's not all that bad.
>>
>>
> It's amazing how agitated so many people get about abortion. If the
> "right" to an abortion were overturned at the federal level - and even
> the state and local level as well - it would NOT mean every woman has to
> give birth to babies! But it WOULD encourage women (who are capable of
> getting pregnant) to use birth control or to get their lovers to use
> birth control. That does not seem like the most horrible of things. In
> fact it would prevent conceiving unwanted children and the murdering of
> those children by women/parents who couldn't be bothered to use birth
> control. That actually seems like a positive thing to me!
>
> And yes, I acknowledge that some pregnancies are the result of failed
> birth control. That would clearly require some kind of special
> consideration as would cases of rape where the woman was precluded the
> option to use birth control and the rapist chose not to use it.
>
> The way I see it, MOST of the pro-abortion crowd doesn't want to give up
> their option of having unprotected intercourse and then aborting any
> babies that result from that.

You're not quite right on a couple of points. The 'pro-abortion' people
do use contraception, because abortion is a piss poor method of birth
control and they realize that. Also most of the anti-abortion group is
opposed to contraception, seeing it as another form of abortion. Oh, and
women who conceive after a rape deserve it because they brought it on
themselves.

>
> I would also like to point out that many women would NOT be affected by
> this decision in the slightest. I'm speaking of those who are too old to
> conceive; those who are unable to conceive because they have had
> hysterectomies or other procedures that prevent conception; lesbians;
> the celibate, and those too young to conceive. Oh, and let's not forget
> the "women" who aren't actually women: the trans-genders who were born
> with penises and lopped them off.
>