Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blackman1
...I’ve not read the decision but since it overturns Roe we shall see whether states will pass laws make abortion illegal. I believe the law on the books in Oklahoma makes abortion illegal except for death of the mother. No six weeks, no 2 days, no nothing, just outright illegal.
The law won’t stop abortions, it’ll just start jailing doctors and closing clinics. I suppose those aren’t technically the same thing...
|
Say, that's a might fine set of Slippery Slope-isms your sporting there laddy. Why Gooo-oolly there Goober. Welcome to the club. I realize I have to cut up your words into little bite sized pieces for you to swallow. No problem-o lil feller.
So with:
you not having read it, you know not only what it does, but what it does in the future. Ammirite?"
'I’ve not read the decision but since it', '
we shall see', '
whether states shall pass'
The Daily Double! I may actually agree or at least concede the entire next two sentences to you. Congratulation! "
I believe the law on the books in Oklahoma makes abortion illegal except for death of the mother. No six weeks, no 2 days, no nothing, just outright illegal." Beats me, but it's possible
But then the questions:
- So what the fuck does it have to do with you?
- You a registered voter there?
Notwithstanding, see how (above) you rolled right on down that slippery slope from death, 6 weeks, 2 day, nothing. Yet, it is entirely an
Oklahoma problem - ~ population of 4M voters.
- What you have there is a local problem, i.e. Not your problem
- That a majority or 2/3rds majority can change, 2.1M or 2.6M
- That change can be more restrictive or less restrictive
Now, if it were federal law, regardless of exact wording for sake of argument
- Oklahomans now have to tussle with 100 US Senators and ~450 Congress critters and a ~330M voting base
- do the math
Light recap so far, if the Oklahomans are fine with not allowing abortion in their state - that is their choice, as not delegated specifically to the Federal government in the Constitution and clarified in the 10th amendment. Elegant and simple. Juss say'n that's how a Constitutional Republic operates by definition and they can settle their accounts at the local level.
Whew! Imma take a short break before I tackle your 4th sentence <
musical interlude if so inclined, it's seriously good and short>
Ready for sentence 4 (How did you like the interlude?)
Recalling:
- "So with:
you not having read it, you know not only what it does, but what it does in the future. Ammirite?"
'I’ve not read the decision but since it', '
we shall see', '
whether states shall pass'"
- I presume in
Oklahoma, which as we discussed redress above, i.e the whole math thingy - starting with the phrase 'slippery slope' on down to 'do the math' would favor
Oklahoma if it is a local problem. But, there would NOT be a ding-danged thing
Oklahoma could do to stop a Federal level slippery slope affair. Now would there?
Finally, all that break down just so I can ask a simple question of you:
So why in holy hell would
Oklahoma want to include ~320M carpet bagging jizz-wads into their local matters anyway? Because it hurts your 'feelings' is entirely irrelevant.
But as it is not in the Constitution and you really wanted to include it, you could go for a Constitutional amendment and hope you never-ever set foot in
Oklahoma for the rest of your days.
Remember the 3 H's:
Hope you checked out that musical interlude.
Hook 'em Horns
Had we been discussing Texas, I would not be nearly as Texas friendly.
60% pro choice up to first tri
