Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Biden speaks out on draft SCOTUS opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade" video.

  1. Because state elected politicians given the slightest crap about the whims of the people... The current ruling is supported by the 14th amendment.
    2
  2. Not for abortion, for choice. Keeping kids out of the adoption system is reason enough.
    1
  3. @Cho Biden If you check the legal documentation it was post-Bill of Rights, the 14th amendment.
    1
  4.  Sir Dontrip feat. Pepe Minaj  Nobody legally considers a fetus as it's own person.
    1
  5.  Sir Dontrip feat. Pepe Minaj  But they are capable of consciousness, which is legally the boundary for personhood. It's nothing to do with providing for oneself.
    1
  6.  Sir Dontrip feat. Pepe Minaj  Because you are restricting the mother's rights and body autonomy. The issue is consent.
    1
  7. Pro choice is not pro death. We just advocate for the 14th amendment.
    1
  8.  @johnnylightning1967  It's a false choice. The real choice is deciding to support all human rights, or to support zealots.
    1
  9.  @johnnylightning1967  The UN codified the 30 human rights. No souls needed I'm afraid.
    1
  10.  @johnnylightning1967  Can you define soul?
    1
  11.  @johnnylightning1967  That's not really a definition. For starters I was created by my parents. On top of that your definition of a soul seems completely nonexistent. Did you mean to post something so meaningless? How about this: Define "soul" Define "spirit"
    1
  12.  @johnnylightning1967  Right...but what is it?
    1
  13.  @johnnylightning1967  You haven't even defined what a soul is yet.
    1
  14.  @johnnylightning1967  So you're saying that not only do you have no description of a soul, but you are incapable of providing one, as you just have to believe. Maybe if you didn't rely entirely on faith you would understand reality a little better.
    1
  15.  @johnnylightning1967  By evolution I'm assuming you mean the theory of evolution. So what you are actually asking is: "are you in favour of the theory of evolution, a theory that pulls together multiple fields of biology and paleontology, explaining them all to the greatest degree of certainty possible considering the overwhelming preponderance of evidence." Comparing over a century of scientific study and research to your book of magic is not the same thing.
    1
  16.  @johnnylightning1967  I believe in evidence, wherever it may lead.
    1
  17.  @johnnylightning1967  You have it backwards, probably because you don't understand my viewpoint and are therefore attribution the logic of your own viewpoint onto me. Evolution is the not evidence. The evidence is the evidence and it shows evolution. There is a difference.
    1
  18.  @johnnylightning1967  1. Survival of the fittest is an observation. We aren't using it to create policy. 2. Humans are not particularly subject to evolution these days. In fact, modern technology renders it almost entirely defunct. So maybe stop comparing scientific observations of how the world works to another religious dictator and mass murderer.
    1
  19.  @johngalardi  What legal rights do fetuses have?
    1
  20.  @johngalardi  If it isn't capable of consciousness it isn't legally alive. You can't murder something that's not legally a person.
    1
  21.  @johngalardi  Many things are alive, but they are not legally a person, or is it murder every time I pull up a weed in my garden?
    1
  22. Considering 2008 was 14 years ago, the idea that gas prices back then would be directly comparable to now is a joke. Prices were also higher before even adjusting for inflation back in 2011-14. Our terrible economy started during the last administration btw. 14.7% unemployment is no joke. Current unemployment is now 3.6%, so obviously you 2008 claim is dubious at best. GDP also grew 5.7% last year. Honestly, the idea that you know what you're talking about is being burned at the stake.
    1
  23. That's actually not correct. According to the constitution's 14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". You have to be born to be considered a citizen, and therefore you don't have rights until you are born.
    1
  24.  @brittanyjordan1265  Agreed, but most people are in favor of legal abortion.
    1
  25.  @trevorc8778  "Great, off you go then" Fun fact, humans that aren't capable of consciousness are not considered legally alive.
    1
  26. Last administration tried to overturn the election. I think we know who really fails to follow the constitution.
    1
  27. There are already laws on the books in multiple southern states that would give mother's seeking abortions decades in prison. The threat would drive away the ability to receive care, which would lead to illegal abortions, and the horrible healthcare conditions associated with them. If this passes get ready for mortality increases among expectant mothers. As for the "don't say gay" bill, no it does not have anything to do with sex ed you neanderthal. The irony of you calling people low information voters, while showing an obvious lack of understanding of the law, is actually ridiculous. The bill bans teachers from discussing gender identity and sexual orientation in ANY capacity. That means simple conversations like "sometimes men get married", a concept that even 5 year olds can grasp, is banned in schools up to 4th grade. It's actually pathetic.
    1
  28.  @sublyme1994  "We have decided to give states the power to restrict the rights of the American people." Imagine if they did this for the 13th amendment like they are for the 14th now. No Civil War at least I guess.
    1
  29.  @sublyme1994  Sure, if you want to ignore the point of the supreme court in the first place. Rights can have certain limitations, bodily autonomy is not one of them.
    1
  30. Watching the country fall apart shouldn't be considered favourably by anyone.
    1
  31.  @robertshimko4757  Can you?
    1
  32.  @robertshimko4757  Off you go then, whenever you're ready.
    1
  33.  @robertshimko4757  I mean, you could just read it, it's in the thread. You said you could define what a woman is.
    1
  34. ​ @robertshimko4757  Define female.
    1
  35.  @robertshimko4757  Again, define female, since you consider 5 minutes great suspense, but 18 minutes an acceptable time to keep people waiting while ignoring their responses.
    1
  36.  @robertshimko4757  Does it really take this long?
    1
  37.  @robertshimko4757  Come on Rob, get it together and try again. Define female.
    1
  38.  @robertshimko4757  You know it's funny, all I can really see you doing is using words you don't really understand. For example Fascist - Like the fascists who stole a supreme court seat, and changed the rules to make sure they secured it without needing 60 votes. Like the people who tried to overturn the election. Like the people who openly support violating our 14th amendment rights. Pedophilia - Ray Holmberg resigned last week. How short is your memory? Democratic Plantation - As if any of the people that currently live in rural, more racist areas are voting Democrat these days. Look up the southern strategy there champ. Oh, and define female.
    1
  39. The Roe vs Wade document was not an opinion by one justice, it was a majority opinion by 5 justices.
    1
  40.  @afterdark6822  One justice is the keyword. It was a majority opinion by 5 justices.
    1
  41.  @afterdark6822  It directly contrasts the 14th amendment. It removes legal rights of women at the federal level, and gives states the opportunity to restrict rights. The last time they tried that at such a scale we had a civil war over it.
    1
  42.  @afterdark6822  The federal government DOES have business protecting rights, and has done so for centuries. Did you learn nothing about the US Civil War?
    1
  43.  @SeanWinters  Forcing mothers to give birth is a violation of the 13th. Telling them what to do with their bodies is a violation of the 14th. It's not a baby, it's a fetus. It is legally not a person. Stop trampling on the rights of women.
    1
  44.  @SeanWinters  "9 months of discomfort is not only natural, it's much less harm than literally killing someone" 1. You are arguing for the removal of body autonomy while prescribing meaning as to why. Have you ever considered that people are more prone to caring about the years after that child is born rather than pregnancy itself? 2. Your argument also presupposes that unborn fetuses are considered "someone". Legally they are not considered people, mainly due to their inability to be conscious. "You might as well say "by taking slaves away you're trampling on the rights of white people to not work!"" Actually it's quite the opposite. Allowing states to write laws that restrict the 14th amendment is no different to states writing laws that restrict the 13th amendment. We fought a civil war over one of those. States wanted the right to have slaves, and federal government said no because it was a violation of the rights of the people they were enslaving. "Smdh considering the vast, overwhelming majority of abortions are abortions of convenience" So? Most gun owners never use them. Should we take away gun rights? If a proportion of the population stopped voting would be remove their right to vote? At what point are rights given conditionally? "you're literally making the argument that women should be allowed to murder their unborn" Murder is a legal definition which does not fit this circumstance. Again, you are making an assumption about the legal personhood of the unborn. "Because of discomfort?" Again, you are characterising expectant mothers in a way that suits your argument rather than a way that fits reality.
    1
  45.  @SeanWinters  "no I'm not. I'm arguing for the bottle of autonomy of the child" Children, by definition, have to be born to be considered children. "something that you refuse to Grant because you love dehumanizing people." Define people. Again, you are removing rights because you don't know the legal definition of a person. "No, it's exactly the same. Republican states voted to ban slavery, just like we are voting to ban abortion." Southern states did not however vote to ban slavery. Check out the southern strategy for more details. The states that were pro-slavery are now anti-abortion. Both center around the idea of states rights. "but you have no right to own a slave and you have no right to abort a child." We get it, you want to take away rights and are using slavery as a shield from that. "My ancestors fought a war to end slavery, they won, and by God I will fight you to end abortion." Doubt. If they lived in the north then sure, but those are the very states that are in favour of women having bodily autonomy. "Abortions of convenience is the reason why republicans are against abortion in the first place." You misspelled religion, but okay. "If you are going to tie in abortions of convenience to guns, you would compare it to mass shootings" You misunderstand the argument. The point is about rights being taken away because you don't like the way people are using them. "Slaves were once not legally considered people, they are now." Right, because of the 13th amendment. "Children will be considered legally people very soon" They already are, as children have to be born to be considered children. That's just the definition, both legally and in dictionaries. "Exactly how they are. All of the evidence shows that at least 80% of abortions are abortions of convenience, given with zero explanation or reasoning other than "i Don't want it"." Again, you are advocating for the removal of rights because you disagree with the use, see the point about guns. What's worse, giving zero explanation is not the same as not having a reason. Women are not required to give a reason, but can have perfectly valid reasons to do so regardless of any survey.
    1
  46. Or he has just come to appreciate the idea of separating church from state, and doesn't pollute his personal opinions with law.
    1
  47.  @alexkane84  What even is a "global shipping backlog" anyway?
    1
  48.  @gwp4eva  Giving people rights is not an increase in federal governmental power. In fact it is the opposite.
    1
  49. Why? You think the leak is more important than overturning 50 years of legal precedent? Or are you advocating for a medal ceremony for the leaker.
    1
  50.  @josiahzeafla4465  Wrong. 14th amendment protects people after birth, not before.
    1
  51.  @ryanelliott6706  If it's not born it's not legally a baby. If it's not capable of consciousness it cannot legally be considered a person.
    1
  52.  @ryanelliott6706  "life starts at conception" Who's life? "Ending life is murder." I'll keep that in mind next time I pull up a weed, although I doubt there will be a legal fight over it. Maybe because murder is restricted to people. "No religion needed to acknowledge the obvious. But there is religion needed to blindly accept things that are blatantly contradictory. "Consciousness isn’t a requirement to be a person." Well no, it's the ability to be conscious. You can't kill people just because they're sleeping, that would be silly. They are required to not be capable of being conscious. "That’s just a hilariously arbitrary definition to protect yourself from the responsibility of killing a child." It's not arbitrary at all, it's a legal definition.
    1
  53.  @ryanelliott6706  "Ending human life is murder." Wrong. People are considered legally dead all the time, and killing them isn't murder. "Life starts at conception. There is no way to dispute that fact." But the basis of "life" as grounds for a law is arbitrary, as shown with my point about weeds. "You can pretend it’s a “heartbeat” or some form of “consciousness” or “16 weeks” or “20 weeks”. But leftists consistently base it on something arbitrary." It's the ability to be conscious, again, see about people being declared legally dead. "The only logical conclusion is that life starts at conception and you are a baby killer." Sure, if you start with a conclusion and bend all reasoning to match that conclusion, I can see how you would think that. "And only a handful of other leftists agree with you because you all have different answers to what life is. And some leftists don’t even consider a baby alive until much after birth." Arguing about finer details is not the same falling on the other side of the aisle. 70% of Americans agree with access to abortion. You are a minority. Nobody agrees with your last statement, it's sheer scaremongering.
    1
  54. They never had 60 votes, they tried a lot.
    1
  55.  @joeylamack3197  People who glorify restriction people's rights say the scariest things. Now that you are openly supporting a violation of the 14th amendment what's next? A violation of the 13th? Are we going all the way back on this "states rights" nonsense?
    1
  56. With the knowledge that they were wanted.
    1
  57.  @BrianWilliams21706  That has nothing to do with what I said, and all your point does is prove that she had a safe abortion. Without those services available she could have resorted to unsafe methods, either killing herself or seriously damaging the fetus with drugs or alcohol. Her drive to get an abortion is not restricted by law. Criminals don't follow laws, remember.
    1
  58. But women seeking abortions are neither.
    1