- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
My theory: Legalizing infanticide is meant to bring RvW back to SCOTUS
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:15 pm
The dems have a strategy here, and I believe it is to get the SCOTUS to hear abortion arguments as soon as possible. Why? Because they love playing gender and race politics, and they believe that this issue will push women to their side in 2020.
Look at the field of Dems right now. They are all WOMEN. Their chosen front runner is a BLACK WOMAN. This is their play; secure as many black and female votes as possible against the racist, misogynistic Orange Hitler.
I think they know that legalizing infanticide is not a winning issue, but they are taking a page out of the Trump playbook: start big to grab attention and then hedge back to a reasonable (at least in their eyes) shade of gray.
These insane laws will most definitely be challenged, and they will wind up at the steps of the Supreme Court. They will be struck down and hopefully even stronger restrictions on abortion as a result. This last point is key. They WANT the SCOTUS to restrict abortion, because they are betting that this will create a mass furor in the country. They will play the "See we told you Republicans want to control women's bodies," and the talk of infanticide will be a forgotten moment.
Then again, they may truly want to kill infants.
Look at the field of Dems right now. They are all WOMEN. Their chosen front runner is a BLACK WOMAN. This is their play; secure as many black and female votes as possible against the racist, misogynistic Orange Hitler.
I think they know that legalizing infanticide is not a winning issue, but they are taking a page out of the Trump playbook: start big to grab attention and then hedge back to a reasonable (at least in their eyes) shade of gray.
These insane laws will most definitely be challenged, and they will wind up at the steps of the Supreme Court. They will be struck down and hopefully even stronger restrictions on abortion as a result. This last point is key. They WANT the SCOTUS to restrict abortion, because they are betting that this will create a mass furor in the country. They will play the "See we told you Republicans want to control women's bodies," and the talk of infanticide will be a forgotten moment.
Then again, they may truly want to kill infants.
This post was edited on 1/31/19 at 1:16 pm
15
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:17 pm to Midget Death Squad
Agree
They lose on every damn issue.
They think this is the one issue they have an advantage on which is disgusting.
They lose on every damn issue.
They think this is the one issue they have an advantage on which is disgusting.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:18 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:I wonder if they think the laws against murder is controlling the murderers body?
They will play the "See we told you Republicans want to control women's bodies,
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:20 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
I think they know that legalizing infanticide is not a winning issue, but they are taking a page out of the Trump playbook: start big to grab attention and then hedge back to a reasonable (at least in their eyes) shade of gray.
I think you are correct. However, the left ALWAYS overplay their hand. They are like the friend that takes the joke way too far to inappropriate levels. Except, the left is using children as their jokes.
It's pretty simple, really. The left do not value children/kids/babies. So they have no qualms using infanticide as a means to get what they want. They just want power. And they will offer up the deaths of every single baby in this country, if that means they get political power.
They are monsters, and this lust for murdering babies is making them look like the creepy, blood thirsty, demons they are.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:20 pm to Cosmo
quote:
They think this is the one issue they have an advantage on which is disgusting.
They do win on it unfortunately. It's sickening how many people have fallen for the "women's body" argument.
This sudden rash of States rushing to legalize infanticide is bizarre, and I believe it is intentional for the above stated end game. In 18 months we won't be talking about infanticide anymore. We will be talking about the SCOTUS either hearing arguments to end abortions or actually have already done so.
Be prepared for this following argument to be blasted everywhere:
This post was edited on 1/31/19 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:22 pm to Midget Death Squad
Maybe, but I think more likely is that the 2018 midterms expanded liberal majorities in some blue state legislatures, so their severe TDS is resulting in them going off the deep end on stuff like this to "get back at" Trump.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:28 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:your theory is wrong for at least one obvious reason. The dems have been working on this for several years. This isn't as new as your theory suggests. They didn't just up and write these law proposals this year or last year. These exact proposals were written at least as far back as the 90's.
Legalizing infanticide is meant to bring RvW back to SCOTUS
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:31 pm to arcalades
quote:
This isn't as new as your theory suggests.
The sudden race to pass these laws is new. While there have been some fringe politicians pushing this over the years, only now do you see States coming out en masse to actually enact this shite. That is a coordinated strategy, and these things are never done without an end game in mind.
It certainly could be the next phase in dehumanizing babies and life as many have suggested, but I think this is more of a 2020 play to make abortion the #1 issue. We will see in a year if I am correct or not, but I believe this stance will be tamed down and they will walk away from it.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:32 pm to Midget Death Squad
I have to hand it to the Dems, I definitely did not see them going with the strategy of "let's support the murder of newborn babies to then hopefully have a SCOTUS case on the docket for 2020". Bold move for sure.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:35 pm to Midget Death Squad
1. You are correct. And the insane part is - they have managed to in a span of days point to the worst case scenario feared by all
Pro Life Advocates, and away a people who were usually ambivalent on this issue (myself included).
2. This will blow up in their face. Roe is gone and the Democrats of the state of VA have only themselves to blame.
Pro Life Advocates, and away a people who were usually ambivalent on this issue (myself included).
2. This will blow up in their face. Roe is gone and the Democrats of the state of VA have only themselves to blame.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:37 pm to Midget Death Squad
Both sides will raise crap tons of campaign donations on this issue. Those for post-birth baby killing and against will be compelled to donate $ for candidates.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:39 pm to Midget Death Squad
FWIW, I think the abortion issue and the 2nd amendment issue are a perfect microcosm of everything wrong with politics and civil discourse in our country at the moment.
You cant have a civil discussion about either. Mostly because they both cover what many consider "absolute" IE unalienable rights.
Yes, life and liberty are both covered here.
Any doctor that tells you 3rd trimester abortions are not medically necessary given a certain set of circumstances is a quack at worst or poorly trained at best.
Anyone that says guns are not necessary in a "civil" society is craving subjugation at worst or is lying to himself at best.
Both proponents desire the government to stay out of their decision making process. Unfortunately, both sides tend to get hijacked by people with little to no skin in the game.
Should a pussy hat wearing coastal hipster who has never stood up for anything in his life really tell an Army veteran he can't own whatever weapons he wants? Should a bible thumping preacher really tell a woman how to choose between her life and that of an unborn child?
Where the rub comes in, for me anyway, is information. The majority of us rely so much on the MSM that the facts are rarely represented as they should be. Nor do we try and see things from the other side as much as we should.
The NY and VA laws has really caused me to do some soul searching the last few days. I dont know what the answers are. All I do know is that freedom comes in some really weird forms some times and the pursuit of that more perfect union can be really heartbreaking.
You cant have a civil discussion about either. Mostly because they both cover what many consider "absolute" IE unalienable rights.
Yes, life and liberty are both covered here.
Any doctor that tells you 3rd trimester abortions are not medically necessary given a certain set of circumstances is a quack at worst or poorly trained at best.
Anyone that says guns are not necessary in a "civil" society is craving subjugation at worst or is lying to himself at best.
Both proponents desire the government to stay out of their decision making process. Unfortunately, both sides tend to get hijacked by people with little to no skin in the game.
Should a pussy hat wearing coastal hipster who has never stood up for anything in his life really tell an Army veteran he can't own whatever weapons he wants? Should a bible thumping preacher really tell a woman how to choose between her life and that of an unborn child?
Where the rub comes in, for me anyway, is information. The majority of us rely so much on the MSM that the facts are rarely represented as they should be. Nor do we try and see things from the other side as much as we should.
The NY and VA laws has really caused me to do some soul searching the last few days. I dont know what the answers are. All I do know is that freedom comes in some really weird forms some times and the pursuit of that more perfect union can be really heartbreaking.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:40 pm to Midget Death Squad
I don’t understand the Handmaiden Tale Refernces. . . I didn’t read the book and I dont have HULU but isn’t the premise that these women are fertile and want to keep their babies, as opposed to kill them in the birth canal so they can scoop them out 3 days later??????
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:40 pm to Midget Death Squad
Do you want this regulated by the states or not?
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:42 pm to TBoy
quote:I prefer it regulated by the states but when you start talking about aborting healthy full term babies because mommy is a bit crazy..............NOW, you're back in to Federal land.
Do you want this regulated by the states or not?
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:42 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
Their chosen front runner is a BLACK WOMAN
If you are talking about Kamala Harris she isn't an African American.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:44 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:I am sorry, but this theoryi volves so much tinfoil that it actually receives broadcast television signals.
These insane laws will most definitely be challenged, and they will wind up at the steps of the Supreme Court.
I keep asking (with no response) how these theoretical cases are going to reach SCOTUS.
These types of cases generally reach SCOTUS because a state statute is alleged to violate the Constitution. In the case of Roe, it was a horseshite, non-existent Constitutional “right to privacy,” but that detail is unimportant to an. evaluation of the latest Tinfoil Thoeory.
What Constitutional right is violated by a given statee’s decision to ALLOW (rather than restrict) a medical procedure that phyically affects only the person who CHOOSES to undergo that procedure?
Someone might argue that the fetus is affected. From a factual perspective, that person would be correct. From a legal perspective, however, that fact is utterly irrelevant because the 14th applies only to persons who have been BORN.
Basicall, SCOTUS would have to make brand new law to the effect that an unborn fetus is a legal “person,” and no Strict Constructionist or Originalist is going to make at sort of acivist ruling. And even THAT begs the question of how anyone would have legal STANDING to bring the suit.
So, someone please lay out the theory as to how this hypothetical case reaches SCOTUS.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
These types of cases generally reach SCOTUS because a state statute is alleged to violate the Constitution. In the case of Roe, it was a horseshite, non-existent Constitutional “right to privacy,” but that detail is unimportant to an. evaluation of the latest Tinfoil Thoeory.
Well. Let me ask you.
If a state passed a law tomorrow that allowed mothers to kill their babies within 5 days of birth if the baby had a birth defect, do you think that could find it's way to the court?
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:48 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:If a fetus is indeed ruled to be a “person” as a matter of law, is there not at least a QUESTION as to whether there is an issue of involuntary servitude in forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy for the benefit of that other “person?”
Be prepared for the (Handmaid’s Tale) argument to be blasted everywhere:
This post was edited on 1/31/19 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:53 pm to Wednesday
quote:The premise is that they want to be the ones who determine when and whether they get pregnant and carry to term ... and by whom. Instead, they are forced to endure pregnancy after pregnancy that they DO NOT want, by men that they do not want.
I don’t understand the Handmaiden Tale Refernces. . . I didn’t read the book and I dont have HULU but isn’t the premise that these women are fertile and want to keep their babies, as opposed to kill them in the birth canal so they can scoop them out 3 days later??????
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News