Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "How The Supreme Court Killed Roe v. Wade" video.

@citricdemon the idea that Congress would need to spell out every single right you have is contrary to the constitution, which you clearly don't care about, meaning your idea of "doing things the right way" is just dishonest garbage.
20
Side note: abortion CAN trace it's roots back to the founding of the USA. When the court claims otherwise, it is lying. It was commonly known of and done and if the founding fathers had intended for it to be illegal, they would have made it illegal. More of the "origionalists" not actually caring what the original intent was.
12
Yup. Also separation of church and state from the looks of things. This far-right activist court is just going to be running rights through a woodchipper as fast as it can.
9
That's their goal as they make so clear with setting up to go after contraception next and writing laws that would ban abortions of even ectopic pregnancies (which are non-viable and a death sentence to the mother if not aborted). They quite simply want to punish women for sex. Everything else is just grasping at excuses.
8
"a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views" could just as easily have described segregation or countless other civil rights issues. It's utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Sometimes, even often, when people disagree on a moral issue, one side is simply in the wrong (as the right has been on EVERY civil rights issue in history).
4
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." -Jean-Paul Sartre, speaking of applicable to all fascists of which xAquinasx is clearly one if anyone is remotely familiar with fascists propagandists on YouTube and merely glances at his subscription list.
2
@citricdemon the idea that Congress would need to spell out every single right you have is contrary to the constitution, which you clearly don't care about, meaning your idea of "doing things the right way" is just dishonest garbage.
2
@citricdemon if you need to point to worship of the flag to "prove" your patriotism or devotion to the ideals the country was founded on, they're not things you possess.
2
@citricdemon no, it doesn't. It interprets the constitution in a way that says "if the government doesn't spell out your rights you don't have them" which is explicitly written against IN THE DOCUMENT. If we were talking about judicial review being ruled in some way that limits people's rights, you might have an argument, but it's the opposite. I also never said the founding fathers weren't patriots. You're displaying EXACTLY the kind of "convenient misreading" I was talking about and which your side has ALWAYS loved to engage in in your opposition to every single civil rights movement in our country's history.
2
If we're talking about the "rights of potential people" then we're talking about a legal standard where the state could mandate women be pregnant as early and often as biologically possible, which of course would be insanity right out of the handmaid's tale.
2
@tigernotwoods914 I'm expanding on your point, not disagreeing with it.
2
@tigernotwoods914 yup, no biggie. It happens.
2
That's the idea. They want the "rights" of governments to supercede those of people because they are authoritarians.
2
@HelicopterShownUp it's actually not a bad argument. Abortion prohibition follows the same dynamics of alcohol and other drug prohibitions: it doesn't reduce the rates. It only pushes it to a black market. The anti-choice crowd doesn't care and opposes legal abortions along with everything that would actually lower abortion rates because they never cared about abortion rates in the first place. It exposes their claimed aims as lies and lets us move past those to see what their actual motivation is, which is plain-old misogyny.
1
There are black KKK members. Being a member of a group doesn't mean you can't hate that group.
1
@INFJason if it was about fetuses, the "pro-life" crowd wouldn't be obsessed with pushing bans that don't lower abortion rates while opposing everything that would actually lower abortion rates. When you call yourselves "pro-life" it's a lie. You're not even anti-abortion. You just want to punish women for sex ... because you hate them.
1
@salvadorramirez2507 this court has proven to be willing to flat-out lie to push its agenda (like its erasing of abortion being a normally accepted right back in the nation's founding). "How" is simple: pretend the facts are whatever would be convenient for them to mean to push more bigotry and discrimination.
1
@daketora they don't care about the explicit rights either. No ink on page can protect you from a government that desires to "conveniently misread" it. And no, it's not supposed to take 3/4ths of the country to enshrine a right.
1
@bens5859 you're incredibly naive in your presumption of good faith.
1
@daketora 3/4th of the states not 3/4ths of the people. It's only supposed to take about 2/3rds of the people.
1
@akumakorgar if they're a supporter of the CCP, of course they don't understand any leftist theory.
1
Abortion WAS considered a right in our nation's founding. When the court says there wasn't historical grounds for it, it was simply lying.
1
@lordzaboem I didn't "play the race card". I just drew a parallel to another time your side was opposing civil rights because it's the same damn pattern every time. The point of that choice of comparison was to pick an issue we all should at least be able to pretend to agree that one side was completely in the wrong to demonstrate the absurdity, emptyness, and irrelevance of the statement. Apparently, that offends you, but here's the thing: I don't care. Anyone who that comparison pisses off because they WANT to defend the excuses of segregationists is someone I'm happy to piss off. You're welcome to stop being anti-freedom and on the wrong side of history any time you like, but seeing as you're utterly incapable of coming up with new arguments or actually being on the moral side, you're just going to have to deal with being compared to the villains of history whenever anyone wants to draw an analogy, because nothing else will fit.
1
@thevictoryoverhimself7298 dude plenty of women DO have multiple sets of DNA through their entire lives. If you understood half about biology that you pretend to, you would know that. Defining personhood strictly through DNA is absurd and would require some people to be legally treated as 2 people. No possible way you could try and define a fetus as a person doesn't lead to absolute absurdities somewhere.
1
@UCnle4MBPcpa9vtZmS-HrElA philosophically, you can't, as it is an emergent property of human development. We can, however, legally lay out boundaries before which and talk of personhood is absurd. We did. You opposed all reason and evidence to tare them down, because the idea of your side engaging in good faith is absurd. You never have and never will. Also, what I was talking about (see the phrase "entire lives") doesn't even have anything to do with reproduction. Throwing out one irrelevant tangential factoid doesn't actually change that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about because you've never given a shit if anything you say is true or not. You can't get away with projecting your willful ignorance and flagrant dishonesty onto me.
1