Milestones

[montycrusto]

A sad day for Women's rights,in the U.S.... Obviously the Supreme Court are secretly Misogynist....
Back to the dark ages.
Even as a mere bloke,I'm shocked and appalled.
View attachment 1194275
(I'll let the admins decide whether this is acceptable to post....)

Yes.. Brexit only sets the UK back forty years or so; this event seems to set the USA back a century and a half Jacob Rees-Mogg probably thinks it’s progress.

 

[Darkprincess69]

A sad day for Women's rights,in the U.S.... Obviously the Supreme Court are secretly Misogynist....
Back to the dark ages.
Even as a mere bloke,I'm shocked and appalled.
View attachment 1194275
(I'll let the admins decide whether this is acceptable to post....)

Not really - this decision doesn't really change all that much, other than kicking these decisions back to the state level, which many people would argue is where they belong in the first place - Roe v Wade was always bad law on all sorts of levels but nothing much is going to change as a result of the Supreme Court overturning this.

Yes I'm sure we're going to see a bunch of far-left extremists getting all bent out of shape just because they believe (almost certainly incorrectly) that this is going to make it harder for them to murder their children, but letting individual states make policy on these matters rather than leaving it to the federal government is certainly a more democratic way to do things...

And before anyone starts having a go at me over this, for the record, I am pro-choice AND pro-life - The two do not have to be mutually exclusive - of course there are times when a termination may be necessary, for all sorts of reasons, but using it as a form of after-the-fact birth control as some people seem wont to do just seems heinous to me

Every case needs to be looked at on its merits, rather than applying blanket rules that attempt (and of course fail) to cover all circumstances.

Whether the Supreme Court ruling is a good thing or a bad one only time will tell, but in my own opinion, looking at this from outside and having spoken to several Americans on both sides of the political aisle, it seems that not much is going to change, at least in the short term.

As a woman, I don't feel that my rights have been affected or diminished by this at all (OK, I'm not American so it doesn't apply to me anyway, and also I'm not ever going to get pregnant - for one thing i'm too old now, apart from being lesbian ) but in y own humble opinion, any woman who feels that this ruling affects them negatively should be asking themselves WHY they feel bad about this - Perhaps they want to maintain the status quo for the wrong reasons - Maybe they should be taking things a bit more seriously and acting with a bit more responsibility (oh yeah I forgot - that's a dirty word these days isn't it? )

Just my opinion - people can feel free to disagree with me if they wish and that's fine

 

[montycrusto]

Yes I'm sure we're going to see a bunch of far-left extremists getting all bent out of shape just because they believe (almost certainly incorrectly) that this is going to make it harder for them to murder their children,

I’ve read some ridiculous bollocks on this site before, but this..

You have outdone yourself!

 

[Demona]

Darkprincess69

>people can feel free to disagree with me if they wish and that's fine<
Thank you - I totally disagree.
You tell it like this is all there is and nothing else will come from it in the future.
All this talk of seriousness and responsibility is - sorry - rubbish!

Because the main reason for a woman not wanting the child growing in her is
pregnancy in the circle of unwanted pregnancy - do I have to repeat the obvious
reasons for unwanted or forced pregnancy? I hope not. The church wants that
women carry even a child set into them due to a raping - why? simply because
for our Catholic Church women still are not outright regular humans but just
'a rib from Adam' and virtually meant to be his slave if you name it. Women are
not meant to work and stand their own life, thus they cannot be allowed to
rule over their own body but have to accept what ever comes their way. That
is the ill and inhumane concept of the Catholic Church. It was never true and
today has become more outdated than it ever was. If women want their full and
unquestioned right on their own body, it cannot be they would have to travel
to get help in an emergency situation, if that would at all be accepted as the
governments notice there are measurable streams wandering to the mostly
democratic states where abortion is still possible. Next by the Reps would for
sure be an act against that travelling,
Nice if you think you cannot be involved in the problematic personally because
you are lesbian and too old (but than this takes any right away from you to talk)
You have no idea that if you encounter one man checking you out for a raping,
he doesn't ask if you are lesbian or whatever, neither does he ask your age and
I tell you, if you are not above ~ 55 you have chances to get a child. You may not
be able to give birth to a fully healthy, alive-and-kicking child, because it may
have genetic defects or other underdevelopments - but just the same: the law
no longer protects you, you may have to suffer with that child that better never
was born for your life long!
Then tell me the court's decision didn't affect you.
Montycrusto was right, your comment lacks thinking further.
Sorry to say.
Demona

 

[Gibbs505]

Not really - this decision doesn't really change all that much, other than kicking these decisions back to the state level, which many people would argue is where they belong in the first place - Roe v Wade was always bad law on all sorts of levels but nothing much is going to change as a result of the Supreme Court overturning this.

Yes I'm sure we're going to see a bunch of far-left extremists getting all bent out of shape just because they believe (almost certainly incorrectly) that this is going to make it harder for them to murder their children, but letting individual states make policy on these matters rather than leaving it to the federal government is certainly a more democratic way to do things...

And before anyone starts having a go at me over this, for the record, I am pro-choice AND pro-life - The two do not have to be mutually exclusive - of course there are times when a termination may be necessary, for all sorts of reasons, but using it as a form of after-the-fact birth control as some people seem wont to do just seems heinous to me

Every case needs to be looked at on its merits, rather than applying blanket rules that attempt (and of course fail) to cover all circumstances.

Whether the Supreme Court ruling is a good thing or a bad one only time will tell, but in my own opinion, looking at this from outside and having spoken to several Americans on both sides of the political aisle, it seems that not much is going to change, at least in the short term.

As a woman, I don't feel that my rights have been affected or diminished by this at all (OK, I'm not American so it doesn't apply to me anyway, and also I'm not ever going to get pregnant - for one thing i'm too old now, apart from being lesbian ) but in y own humble opinion, any woman who feels that this ruling affects them negatively should be asking themselves WHY they feel bad about this - Perhaps they want to maintain the status quo for the wrong reasons - Maybe they should be taking things a bit more seriously and acting with a bit more responsibility (oh yeah I forgot - that's a dirty word these days isn't it? )

Just my opinion - people can feel free to disagree with me if they wish and that's fine

Well DP, I agree with you completely.
What the ruling says, in essence, is that there is no constitutional protection for abortion. It does not outlaw abortion but says the several states can individually pass laws dealing with the subject. As can the house of congress.

That's all and as for my opinion, I will keep that to myself.

 

[Loxuru]

Just my opinion - people can feel free to disagree with me if they wish and that's fine

I agree with you! There are two different aspects : one is the legal liberty to choose, the other one is the personal choice.

The problem here is, that there seems to be a flaw in the system of checks and balances, established nearly 250 years ago by the Founding Fathers (which are most likely rolling over in their grave now). A supreme court should stand above politics. The worst they can do is take decisions that ideologically please the president who nominated them. You can expect that in states with authoritorian control, like in Xyulo - wanted by criminal international court in The Hague's Russia, or in the People's Republic of China, but when it happens in the USA, it becomes worrying.

 

[Darkprincess69]

Darkprincess69

>people can feel free to disagree with me if they wish and that's fine<
Thank you - I totally disagree.

That's fine - I'm not an extremist therefore I have zero issues with anyone who doesn't share my opinion

You tell it like this is all there is and nothing else will come from it in the future.

Actually I never said that - I merely suggested that - in my opinion - nothing much will change in the short term

All this talk of seriousness and responsibility is - sorry - rubbish!

No, it's just my opinion, as I stated earlier. An opinion is neither right nor is it wrong - it is merely an opinion. Everybody has the right to an opinion, just as everbody has a right to agree or disagree with it

Because the main reason for a woman not wanting the child growing in her is
pregnancy in the circle of unwanted pregnancy - do I have to repeat the obvious
reasons for unwanted or forced pregnancy? I hope not. The church wants that
women carry even a child set into them due to a raping - why? simply because
for our Catholic Church women still are not outright regular humans but just
'a rib from Adam' and virtually meant to be his slave if you name it.

Well if you had actually read my post in full, you will notice that I did point out that there are many good reasons why a termination may be necessary. I have never argued this point. I just feel that perhaps it is being used too frequently as a substitute for birth control.

Also, I'm looking at this purely from a humanistic perspective, not a religious one as I'm a confirmed aetheist so I don't have a dog in that particular fight

Women are
not meant to work and stand their own life, thus they cannot be allowed to
rule over their own body but have to accept what ever comes their way. That
is the ill and inhumane concept of the Catholic Church. It was never true and
today has become more outdated than it ever was.

I won't argue with that

If women want their full and
unquestioned right on their own body, it cannot be they would have to travel
to get help in an emergency situation, if that would at all be accepted as the
governments notice there are measurable streams wandering to the mostly
democratic states where abortion is still possible. Next by the Reps would for
sure be an act against that travelling,

Well if you look at the last couple of years, it has to be noted that most of the restrictions on movement have been imposed and enforced by the Dems, but that's a totally different issue with very different reasoning

Nice if you think you cannot be involved in the problematic personally because
you are lesbian and too old (but than this takes any right away from you to talk)
You have no idea that if you encounter one man checking you out for a raping,
he doesn't ask if you are lesbian or whatever, neither does he ask your age and
I tell you, if you are not above ~ 55 you have chances to get a child.

Actually, I'm 57, as stated in my profile, but that's not the point here. I see that once again you fall back on the rape angle which has long been a justification for termination, and one that I agree with 100% - As I said earlier, there are many situations where this is a completely justifiable procedure

You may not
be able to give birth to a fully healthy, alive-and-kicking child, because it may
have genetic defects or other underdevelopments - but just the same: the law
no longer protects you, you may have to suffer with that child that better never
was born for your life long!
Then tell me the court's decision didn't affect you.

No it doesn't affect me - I'm an outsider - I live in the UK, so this particular law doesn't apply to me, as the UK is not (yet) under US jurisdiction, but I do understand the concerns of those that are, but I don't think that it will have the huge negative impact that many on the far left are suggesting. As a non-American, I like to think that I can perhaps look at issues with an objective and non-partisan viewpoint, and assess the matters with a degree of detached impartiality.

Montycrusto was right, your comment lacks thinking further.

So Montycrusto is now literally the Thought Police now? I don't think so, and frankly I'm sure he wouldn't consider himself to be, anymore than I consider myself to be anything other than just a middle-aged woman posting her own opinion on a forum. I'm not going to have a meltdown if someone's opinion doesn't agree with mine though - I'll leave that BS to the far-left extremists on twit-twat...

Sorry to say.
Demona

You don't have to be sorry - you are entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine.

Of course this is an emotive issue, but surely we're all adult enough to be able to comment on this without letting it degenerate into a shouting match, because if that happens then the site admins will simply delete these posts and that would be a pity as I think that a civilised and open discourse is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy...

For what it's worth, I'd just like to calm peoples' fears about what this ruling means, because frankly I don't think it's going to have as big an impact as many people think it will, but as with all legal rulings, it'll need to be watched closely, because, as someone way smarter than me once said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

 

[thehangingtree]

And before anyone starts having a go at me over this, for the record, I am pro-choice AND pro-life - The two do not have to be mutually exclusive -

 

[thehangingtree]

I agree with you! There are two different aspects : one is the legal liberty to choose, the other one is the personal choice.

The problem here is, that there seems to be a flaw in the system of checks and balances, established nearly 250 years ago by the Founding Fathers (which are most likely rolling over in their grave now). A supreme court should stand above politics.

Here is where I get confused...
Yesterday's ruling basically boiled down to there is nothing in the constitution that gives the right to have an abortion. I think the founding fathers would have been more likely rolling over in their graves when R vs. W. was handed down, not when it was rescinded. Don't quote me but I think the 10th amendment states that if the constitution does not allow the feds to do something it goes to the individual states to decide.

Now let me say yesterday's decision does NOT outlaw abortions but leaves it in the states control. I'm sure there will be politicians on both sides of the issue that will end up shooting their political foot off over that!!!

 

[montycrusto]

So Montycrusto is now literally the Thought Police now? I don't think so, and frankly I'm sure he wouldn't consider himself to be

You’re quite right, I’m with the Gazpacho Police, not the Thought Police!

 

[Demona]

Darkprincess, Hangingtree,Montycrusto and who ever might in the meanwhile may have
clicked it:

It clearly shows that such a complex topic is impossible to properly discuss in such a forum.
All opinions I read are one sided and overly emphasizing the one near each one's own
convictions and tending not to realize the other side.

The 57 years mum doesn't realize I had just meant exactly that: this age disqualifies her to
talk about her 'opinion' when the topic does no longer apply to her - besides what is an
opinion worth which the originator declares as neither right nor wrong, or s/he has never
allowed to give it a second, such as in modern rational people that should be understood.
There is a fundamental difference if in a Union of states such an important matter like
abortion is not regulated by federal law but just handled as comes pleasing by local state
governments - some times this way, sometimes the other way. Soon abortion travelling will
become illegal and then fate decides in which state you happened to be born if you can
or cannot get rid of such a forced pregnancy. If that's what means justice to you, ok then
we may as well end discussion right here.

It may have been a weak law and it was never reinforced - but clearly it was better than the
vacuum that now stands where this law had been.

Loxuru: >The problem here is, that there seems to be a flaw in the system of checks and balances,
established nearly 250 years ago by the Founding Fathers<

There more flaws than that - ohhh.

This constitution was knitted 'with a hot needle' if you get what I mean, there are more parts with
flaws than those without, it was never meant for a congregation of states to become so powerful as the
United States are today. They can't even overcome their weapons liberty stemming from the Old West
and now they need to answer the questions of how mankind wants to survive on this planet - they only
have answers from the days of the early stock market where Tyrannosaurus like the Vanderbilts or
Carnegie - to name but two of half a dozen - ruled departing the financial world among them and
keping the rest of folk outsides, that is: not quite, the little money these folks had they would gladly
take, no law against it. And this nation having developed on the holocaust of the original inhabitors,
- to the estimate of some historians killing ~ 20.000.000 people - today wants to appear as the home
of freedom and democracy.

Demona

 

[Gibbs505]

Here is where I get confused...
Yesterday's ruling basically boiled down to there is nothing in the constitution that gives the right to have an abortion. I think the founding fathers would have been more likely rolling over in their graves when R vs. W. was handed down, not when it was rescinded. Don't quote me but I think the 10th amendment states that if the constitution does not allow the feds to do something it goes to the individual states to decide.

Now let me say yesterday's decision does NOT outlaw abortions but leaves it in the states control. I'm sure there will be politicians on both sides of the issue that will end up shooting their political foot off over that!!!

You are correct.

 

[Gibbs505]

Darkprincess, Hangingtree,Montycrusto and who ever might in the meanwhile may have
clicked it:

It clearly shows that such a complex topic is impossible to properly discuss in such a forum.
All opinions I read are one sided and overly emphasizing the one near each one's own
convictions and tending not to realize the other side.

The 57 years mum doesn't realize I had just meant exactly that: this age disqualifies her to
talk about her 'opinion' when the topic does no longer apply to her - besides what is an
opinion worth which the originator declares as neither right nor wrong, or s/he has never
allowed to give it a second, such as in modern rational people that should be understood.
There is a fundamental difference if in a Union of states such an important matter like
abortion is not regulated by federal law but just handled as comes pleasing by local state
governments - some times this way, sometimes the other way. Soon abortion travelling will
become illegal and then fate decides in which state you happened to be born if you can
or cannot get rid of such a forced pregnancy. If that's what means justice to you, ok then
we may as well end discussion right here.

It may have been a weak law and it was never reinforced - but clearly it was better than the
vacuum that now stands where this law had been.
Be sure the Reps make the most of it!
They will not end nagging at taking away women's own decision on their own bodies.
To me the thought of any man deciding on what any woman has to see happening with
herself is simply unbearable and yet far from where we need to go.
Demona

I have grave problems when someone says to me, "You have no right to (whatever) because you are (too old, not a ... or whatever). This seems to be a self fulling argument that dismisses anyone except the chosen few. Therefore you must win because only you have the sacred knowledge, experience or whatever it is to be able to make the decision or whatever it is that you want to do.

All people have there story and should be allowed to express their opinion.

 

[Demona]

Yes - ok, Gibbs,
that is a fundamentally right objection you have. Mine was not formulated fully
correct - yet:
if you are not in a group of persons which may get afflicted by a law, you may
easily have another point of view - you know you will in case never be the one
who has to pay for it.
It is like if you are old and no longer have your driving license, you may easily
vote for the street where you live to become barred for cars and be turned into
a play street - if you don't have to bring two kids to school, your wife to the
institute where she works and then finally drive to your own working space. In
the evening it all goes the reversed way.
And if you say I'm sort of merciless on the old people, what BP wrote was merciless
towards the young people: may they pay the price if they don't pay attention.
(what I wanted to point out was: it is not just that simple to pay attention but also in
a civilized state the law should protect the young women - and not by some wobbly
uncertain "no, but yes - under certain conditions that have to be established if they
please the court sufficiently or not, but we will not speak out what we consider to be
sufficiently .."
Do you get me?
Oh, by the way one German well respected news paper, the SZ, had a lenghty article
about that matter and they dealt with the various subjects better than we do yet in
the end they also came to the point where they judged it to have been a 'dark day
for American women' ...
Demona

 

[Gibbs505]

Yes - ok, Gibbs,
that is a fundamentally right objection you have. Mine was not formulated fully
correct - yet:
if you are not in a group of persons which may get afflicted by a law, you may
easily have another point of view - you know you will in case never be the one
who has to pay for it.
It is like if you are old and no longer have your driving license, you may easily
vote for the street where you live to become barred for cars and be turned into
a play street - if you don't have to bring two kids to school, your wife to the
institute where she works and then finally drive to your own working space. In
the evening it all goes the reversed way.
And if you say I'm sort of merciless on the old people, what BP wrote was merciless
towards the young people: may they pay the price if they don't pay attention.
(what I wanted to point out was: it is not just that simple to pay attention but also in
a civilized state the law should protect the young women - and not by some wobbly
uncertain "no, but yes - under certain conditions that have to be established if they
please the court sufficiently or not, but we will not speak out what we consider to be
sufficiently .."
Do you get me?
Oh, by the way one German well respected news paper, the SZ, had a lenghty article
about that matter and they dealt with the various subjects better than we do yet in
the end they also came to the point where they judged it to have been a 'dark day
for American women' ...
Demona

I get you but points of view vary and peoples emotions, prejudices vary greatly. Like if you are old and no longer have a driving licence, you may oppose turning the street into a play street because you will relay on other people to pick you up for errands and you don't want to walk any further than you have to. See people are complex and filter every thing through the 'noise' that surrounds them.

Sorry, I don't read German papers, I don't speak the language and we don't get them where I live. I also would take, as I do any media report with a grain of salt especially if I was unaware of the driving ethos of the publication. IE, are they leaning to the left or right or are they generally even handed in their treatment of touchy subjects.

I also don't know what you mean by :

in a civilized state the law should protect the young women -

In no state that I am aware of, does the police, who enforce the law, have a legal responsibly to protect any of its citizens. That includes Canada and the USA. You are barking up the wrong tree there.

 

[Demona]

Oh my, Gibbs!
Of course it is long since the Greek philisters no secret that on can argue everything into
a dead end and make it meaningless - that's exactly what you did with my comment.
And:
>In no state that I am aware of, does the police, who enforce the law, have a legal responsibly
to protect any of its citizens.<
That you should not tell me but the thousands of police men and women trying to do just
that when they seek out to take illegal non-insured vehicles driven by persons high on smokes
out of traffic / when they react to an emergency call by some neighbor encountering a solid
house fight or when they investigate a murder case etc.
But it seems we are living on different worlds, probably for you the climate change is something
that either doesn't exist or has been sent by China.
I would say we dump it here, I see no reason nor any good in proceeding.
Bye ...
D

 

[Darkprincess69]

All opinions I read are one sided and overly emphasizing the one near each one's own
convictions and tending not to realize the other side.

Actually I think that my opinions as expressed here are rather more pragmatic than that, which is why I'm fine with people not agreeing with them, but to characterise my words as "one-sided" does feel a little disingenuous

The 57 years mum doesn't realize I had just meant exactly that: this age disqualifies her to
talk about her 'opinion' when the topic does no longer apply to her

Actually that's about as far from the truth as it's possible to get - Firstly, everybody has the right to express an opinion on any subject, whether it is relevant to them or not - to take away this right is a fundamental attack on personal freedom of expression akin to what we see in totalitarian states. Genuine democracy requires all sides to be given the opportunity to speak, otherwise it's no longer democracy

- besides what is an
opinion worth which the originator declares as neither right nor wrong, or s/he has never
allowed to give it a second, such as in modern rational people that should be understood.

Actually all opinions are valid, whether you agree with them or not - there is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion, but sadly these days we are seeing an increasing tendency to attempt to shoot down any opinions that don't agree 100% with the media (both mainstream and social) narrative. If this is allowed to continue unabated, then democracy is doomed

In a civilised society, all voices must be heard. If you disagree with them then that's perfectly fine, but one should never attempt to silence those views that don't agree with your own - that's the path to an authoritarian hellscape

There is a fundamental difference if in a Union of states such an important matter like
abortion is not regulated by federal law but just handled as comes pleasing by local state
governments - some times this way, sometimes the other way.

First of all, if you genuinely believe in women being free to control their own bodies (something that I agree with 100% by the way, as if that wasn't already obvious from my previous posts), then surely the last thing you would want is a federal law governing this matter. By passing the legislation down to the state level doesn't actually change much at all because although there are some states that would wish to ban abortion, there are others that would make it available to those who need it. All the Supreme Court ruling does is to pass the decision making to a different body rather than have the federal government bogged down with it.

If you don't think this is a good thing then one can only assume that you would with the US to become a totalitarian nation where all decisions appertaining to every aspect of our lives would be made by a central government body which will inevitably be completely out of touch with the lives of ordinary people, such as the system we have here in the UK. In general, people don't like their government to be distant and seemingly out of touch - this is why the UK voted for brexit (personally I voted to remain in the EU but democracy means that you don't always get what you want)

Soon abortion travelling will become illegal and then fate decides in which state you happened to be born if you can
or cannot get rid of such a forced pregnancy. If that's what means justice to you, ok then
we may as well end discussion right here.

In order to ban travelling across state lines to get an abortion (or any other medical procedure for that matter) would require a fundamental dismantling of the US Constitution, and despite the best efforts of those on the far left, I don't see that happening anytime soon, so in short, I don't believe that the Supreme Court ruling will change all that much - it doesn't ban abortion, nor was that ever a part of the intention. It was merely to correct a bad legal precedent and return abortion legislation to a more local level - Surely if you believe in personal freedoms that is a positive step...

Of course there will be people who disagree with the decision. I didn't agree with brexit when it happened, and I still don't agree with it now. In fact I will never agree with it, but it is what it is, and life is way too short to waste our valuable time by getting all upset over it and quite frankly, brexit will have (and is having) a far greater negative effect on the populace than I believe the decision to overturn Roe v Wade will have...

So hopefully we can all climb down off our high horses and accept the fact that in life, not everybody is going to agree with us all of the time, so let's keep it friendly please - this is cruxforums, not bloody twitter

 

[Demona]

DP69:

Your latest purge of words and twisted 'argements' proves there really is nothing gained in this useless debate.
Maybe these celebrities could reach you - although I doubt it, most Trump devotees are head over heels into
bowing to their admired uhm leader.

https://www.msn.com/de-de/unterhaltung/celebrity/abtreibungsurteil-in-den-usa-stars-wie-billie-eilish-taylor-swift-mariah-carey-sind-schockiert/ar-AAYR0ZM?ocid=msedgntpAbtreibungsurteil in den USA: Stars wie Billie Eilish, Taylor Swift, Mariah Carey sind schockiert​

Sabrina Knoll - Gestern um 08:44
Reagieren39 Kommentare|

Erschüttert äußern sich Prominente zum US-Abtreibungsentscheid: Billie Eilish sagt, sie ertrage es kaum, daran zu denken. Und Mariah Carey fragt sich, wie sie ihrer Tochter erklären soll, »warum Frauenrechte vor unseren Augen zerfallen«.

Zahlreiche Prominente haben erschüttert auf die historische Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofs gegen das liberale Abtreibungsrecht in den USA reagiert. Billie Eilish sprach von einem dunklen Tag, als sie beim Glastonbury Music Festival auf der Bühne stand. Ohne sich direkt auf das Urteil zu beziehen, sagte die mehrfache Grammy-Gewinnerin: »Heute ist ein wirklich düsterer Tag für die Frauen in den USA. Ich sage das nur, weil ich es in diesem Moment nicht mehr ertragen kann, daran zu denken.« Anschließend spielte die 20-Jährige ihren Song »Your Power«, ein Lied über Machtmissbrauch.
Testen Sie SPIEGEL+ jetzt einen Monat gratis.
Der Supreme Court der USA hatte am Freitag das liberale Abtreibungsrecht des Landes gekippt. Der mehrheitlich konservativ besetzte Supreme Court machte damit den Weg für strengere Abtreibungsgesetze frei – bis hin zu kompletten Verboten.

»Es ist wahrhaft unvorstellbar und entmutigend, versuchen zu müssen, meiner elfjährigen Tochter zu erklären, warum wir in einer Welt leben, in der Frauenrechte vor unseren Augen zerfallen«, schrieb Sängerin Mariah Carey.

»Ich bin absolut geschockt, dass wir an dieser Stelle stehen«, schrieb Sängerin Taylor Swift bei Twitter: »Nach so vielen Jahrzehnten, in denen Menschen für das Recht von Frauen gekämpft haben, über ihren Körper zu bestimmen, hat uns diese Entscheidung das wieder weggenommen.«
Schauspielerin Viola Davis schrieb via Twitter, sie sei »am Boden zerstört«. »Jetzt müssen wir mehr denn je unsere Stimme und unsere Macht benutzen.« Wie Swift teilte auch sie in ihrem Tweet das Statement der ehemaligen First Lady Michelle Obama zu dem Urteil.
Hailey Bieber, Model und Ehefrau von Popstar Justin Bieber, kommentierte in einer Story auf Instagram: »Wow ... ich bin sprachlos. Was für ein furchtbarer Verlust und was für eine Enttäuschung. Das macht sehr, sehr viel Angst.«

The names in blue have all expressed their opinions on that decision in the way it was wrong.
But now: rien que fini de cet affaire.
D

---

 

[Darkprincess69]

DP69:

Your latest purge of words and twisted 'argements' proves there really is nothing gained in this useless debate.
Maybe these celebrities could reach you - although I doubt it, most Trump devotees are head over heels into
bowing to their admired uhm leader.

Did you just call me a Trump devotee? - ROFLMFAO

That's fucking hilarious!

It's pretty clear that you're one of those radical leftists that automatically default back to calling people Trump supporters if they don't agree with you - That's actually very sad and maybe just a little bit pathetic

Being a UK citizen, I don't even get to vote in the US elections so a comment like this is really just a bit silly isn't it? Frankly we have more than our fair share of idiot politicians over here - we certainly don't need to import more of them

As for listening to the opinions of vacuous celebrities, I think you really underestimate my level of intellect if you think I'm going to be swayed by the opinions of a bunch of performing monkeys whose only purpose in life is to dance for our entertainment. Celebrities are among the least educated and most vile people on the planet, thinking that they're more important than the rest of us when quite clearly they're mostly completely irrelevant, and the day I listen to anything they have to say is the day I get my head replaced with a cabbage!

Of course they're entitled to their opinions, just as the rest of us are, but I'm also entitled to ignore them, just as you are entitled to ignore mine (except that you're not ignoring mine - you keep on trying to undermine them, but you will always fail to do that)

The names in blue have all expressed their opinions on that decision in the way it was wrong.

I'm sure they have, but as mentioned earlier, I don't give a tuppenny shit about anything that any of those morons have to say (by the way, who the hell is billie ellish?)

 

[RacingRodent]

In no state that I am aware of, does the police, who enforce the law, have a legal responsibly to protect any of its citizens. That includes Canada and the USA. You are barking up the wrong tree there.

In the 46 states that are member of the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the EU) which include among others Germany and still at least for now the UK the Police do indeed have a legal responsibility to protect their citizens.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/armed-policing/legal-framework

Rather amusingly the College of Policing still has it being as part of the EU on their site but do list the case law decisions which define the limits of that legal responsibility, it does however remain within those defined limits. Specifically noted is the duty to protect citizens from third parties where the police are aware of the threat they pose.