Tuesday, November 29, 2011


previous post: Pho Yeah!



  1. Follow the yellow brick road to the abortion clinic?

  2. Ummm… I live in Kansas. And I’m pretty sure it’s not illegal to get an abortion, though I have never needed one myself. Anyway, if you live in Kansas, then you should live close enough to the border to go to another state to get the procedure. If you live in Central Kansas, then you have more problems than just being pregnant.

  3. I’m so confused. At first, I read the order of the post (bottom to top) thinking thats the chronological order of posts, but he makes the abortion statement 2 days before she says she’s so glad he’s the father of baby… WOW.

  4. Codename Dutchess

    Anyone named Bladez, or at least goes by that name, has no business raising a child. Also, he’s an idiot. Abortions are Constitutionaly mandated, they cant be outlawed. Kansas is shitty but for many other reasons.

  5. Agreed, Dutchess. Although Bladez is the female…and hence the one that is decrying the (supposed) lack of abortions in Kansas.

  6. As of this time only one clinic is legally allowed to give abortions in KS and it’s in Overland Park. Abortion isn’t illegal in KS BUT they used a TRAP law to ensure most, if not all, abortion clinics could no longer run.

    For those interested in the nasty details here is an article: http://prospect.org/article/how-kansas-banned-abortion

    So the Bladez (WTF is with his name?) guy is right, sorta.

  7. Dutchess, would you mind pointing out where in the constitution it “mandates” abortions? That’s even more idiotic than Bladez and Jaycee’s comments. Abortions are only “legal” because of a judicial decision in Roe v Wade, not because there is any law or “constitutional mandate”. Please don’t have any children yourself.

  8. I’m pretty sure she was joking about the abortion. She has an unconventional sense of humour, doesn’t she?
    Burn the witch.

  9. So Bladez is the mom? Oh wait, I’m interrupting what’s bound to be a fantastic debate about abortions. Can’t wait!

  10. Codename Dutchess

    smacd– Please, politley go fuck yourself. Rather than argue semantics, let’s just agree that it’s a person’s right to acquire an abortion if they see fit and no state can deny a person that right; though Kansas has tried. Feel better now? Im sure you had no idea what I was referring to so I’m happy to clarify.

  11. Dutchess, with all due respect, you’re a fucktard. Don’t ever have children, we don’t need your idiot offspring running around. By all means, please execute them before they make it out of your rotten womb. Abortion is neither a right nor a mandate, it simply exists due to judicial precedent at this point, and a state can make up whatever laws it wants to, and will do so as long as they are willing to defend them in the federal courts system. Try looking up the 10th amendment sometime.


  13. Codename Dutchess

    smacd– Sweet Christ, I hope this isnt your hobby. For the record, Im a man and simply pointing out and that its ludicris to think that somehow a state has the ability to go over the head of the Supreme Court and make abortion an illegal act. My comment had nothing to do with the morality of abortion but that its an option for those who need it. It’s far more immoral for a state to impose restrictions on whether a person can seek a medical procedure that is legal. Now, I’ll continue on with my day of *not* reproducing as you have proven that there are enough pretentious douchebags as is.

  14. Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.
    Welcome to

  15. Thank goodness for ssccbb and their spam link for a much needed break in the tension.

  16. Dutchess, I would argue the morality of an act doesn’t depend upon its legal status one way or the other, and that it isn’t inherently immoral for a state to impose restrictions on an act that’s legal. On the other hand due to the judicial precedent, abortion is protected as a right under our present legal system. SO: no state can outright outlaw it.
    I also do not fully understand why people believe that women should be legally obligated to use their bodies as life support systems for parasites. If I surgically attached a midget to you without your consent so that its life was supported by your body, just about everyone would agree you had the right to remove it.

  17. If it were multiple midgets attached to a person, would that be a human millipede?

  18. No, Soup. That would make them a human Voltron.

  19. (http://url7。me/c6i4 )

  20. All you have to do is read the names

  21. @DeviantNicole- Bahahaha I lol’d. Good one.

  22. @Codename Dutchess, your handle on here is amazing, you glorious bastard.

    One more reason to never move to KS.

  23. To put an end to this ridiculous battle between Dutchess and smacd … you are both right and you are both wrong.

    There is no abortion “mandate,” as mandate means something is required. The constitution does not require abortions. So in that sense Dutchess is wrong. But I think maybe Dutchess just misspoke.

    But smacd, you are not only extremely rude but also wayyyyyyyy more wrong than Dutchess. Perhaps it is you that should not be reproducing.
    1) While it’s true that abortion is “only legal because of Roe v. Wade” like you said, Roe v. Wade is based on the Court’s conclusion that American Citizens have a **Constitutional** RIGHT to privacy, and the RIGHT (yes, it *IS* a right) to have an abortion is enveloped within that right to privacy. Yes it’s a judicial decision, but it was decided on Constitutional grounds. Accordingly, no state may make a law that conflicts with the Constitution of the US, either in its explicit language or as interpreted by the Courts.
    2) You clearly have no understanding of the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment only states that powers not Constitutionally reserved for the federal government are reserved to the states. An example of this would be the right to regulate liquor distribution – the US constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate liquor distribution, therefore it is a right reserved to the states. Each state has its own liquor law, and the federal government is not allowed to pass any kind of liquor regulation, because that would violate the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment in NO WAY allows any state OR the federal government to pass a law that is inconsistent with the US Constitution, as you seem to be implying. There is something separate called the “Supremacy Clause” which states that the US Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land.” So you are completely wrong that states are free to pass laws that are in conflict with the US Constitution. I guess technically they CAN pass them, but they will be likely be struck down in the court system as unconstitutional and taken off the books.
    Please educate yourself because you rudely accuse others of being a “fucktard,” as you have now seen, you will only embarrass yourself.

  24. stillxsearching that was the single most awesome response of all time that caused me to create an account specifically so I can comment on this. Well done and thank you :)

  25. @stillxsearching, I appreciate your attempt to discredit me, but you are completely wrong. There is no constitutional “right” to privacy, however there is a very common misconception that there is. In fact, the closest claim to a right to privacy is part of the 14th amendment, where it states that “No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”, but that does not necessarily imply or contain a “right to privacy”. Second, the constitution is an enumeration of what the federal government is and is not allowed to do. Anything not allowed the federal government by the constitution is specifically the right of the states to decide, however that has been perverted over the last century or so by a more totalitarian federal government than we originally had. Since there is no Constitutional provision for either Privacy OR Abortion, it IS in fact specifically the states that have the right to decide. The only thing preventing many of them from outright banning it is a fear that they will have to fight it in the Supreme Court, and lose. The Constitution is little more than used toilet paper to the Federal government at this point.

    So, by all means, please educate yourself and do some research yourself before you start making asinine claims like a “right to privacy” so emphatically and without proof. Fucktard.

  26. @smacd

    You do understand that more recent judicial rulings have modified/added to the Constitution, correct?

    Probably not, as you fail to grasp that the actual Constitution written centuries ago is not the same yet you still bemoan the fact that the federal government doesn’t adhere to its original intent (or whichever way YOU want to interpret it, which is neither here nor there, as it is fairly obvious you are not a scholar in this field).

  27. @fingers, you do realize that SCOTUS only interprets the constitution, they do not make laws, right? The only way to “modify” or “add” to the constitution is through an amendment, which has to go through Congress or a constitutional convention among states, and then once passing those with 2/3 majorities must be ratified by 3/4 of the states in order to become part of the Constitution. SCOTUS does not make laws, it interprets them.

  28. Again, you’re missing the point to argue basic semantics.

    We all know about elementary knowledge of the three branches of the US government and their relationship to each other.

    You miss the point that court rulings, not just amendments to the constitution, have some bearing on how states/the federal government operates. Try to keep up.

  29. smacd, because you are not a lawyer like me, I cannot blame you for not understanding the role of the US Supreme Court. I can only blame you for being a smug asshole when you don’t have an understanding of the concept yourself.

    You are confusing two totally separate issues. No, “making laws about abortion” is not a power granted to congress in the Constitution. So yes the staes may make laws about abortion. But these laws MAY NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. The Court has expressly stated that a woman has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to an abortion. Therefore, when states pass laws restricting abortion, they may NOT ban it all together, because that would violate the Constitution.

    More broadly, in interpreting the US Constitution, the Court creates a set of rules on equal footing of those expressly enumerated in the constitution. A state can NEVER pass a law that violates the right to “freedom of speech,” which is something expressly enumerated in the Constitution, the words are actually on the page. Now, the Court has further defined this right, the most notable example being that you do NOT have a right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater and even though that is technically speech. So, states may pass laws against yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but may NOT pass laws prohibiting other types of speech that ARE protected by the constitution. Similarly, because the Court has found a right to privacy inherent in the US Constitution (even though it is not expressly written in there, it is still a right guaranteed by the constitution, you don’t seem to be understanding this part) a state can also NEVER pass a law that violates the right to privacy. Which does in fact exist, and since you demanded proof, here is a quote from the case which discussed the existence of the right to privacy, Griswold V. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), majority opinion written by Justice Douglass:

    We recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a “right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people.” See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).

    We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of “privacy and repose.” See, e. g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626 , 644; Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 ; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 ; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 ; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 ; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 . These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

    If this is too confusing for you to understand, try just Wikipedia’ing “right to privacy” or “Griswold v. CT.” It’s nothing to be ashamed of, that is what Wikipedia is for.


  30. HAHAHAHA LOVE IT stillxsearching! you rock.

  31. They are influential only due to their interpretations, which I specifically mentioned, and have cited as the judicial precedent already established. But that doesn’t change the fact that judicial precedent is NOT law, and that the supreme court couldn’t make a completely different ruling in another case. All that judicial precedence does is imply that going against it might be a losing battle in the courts, not that it is in fact a “law”, “right”, “mandate” or any other such nonsense. Since Roe v. Wade established that SCOTUS believed in the 70s that there was no part of the Constitution that specifically allowed the federal government to ban abortion, doesn’t mean a State can’t ban it (it just means that it is reasonably likely that should the State be brought to the Supreme Count, it may lose the case. However the 10th Amendment right of the States to make such laws has not been challenged in the courts in any significant case in a very long time, and could lead to a different decision than that decided in Roe v Wade. Most states would rather not deal with such a heated issue though).

  32. Adding a quote from Roe v. Wade in case this helps clarify the Constitutional basis for the right to access to an abortion, for the “slower” persons among us:

    The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

    This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

  33. “Since Roe v. Wade established that SCOTUS believed in the 70s that there was no part of the Constitution that specifically allowed the federal government to ban abortion, doesn’t mean a State can’t ban it (it just means that it is reasonably likely that should the State be brought to the Supreme Count, it may lose the case)”

    Are you serious?! You have obviously never ever read Roe!!!! Roe is about a TEXAS STATUTE, not a federal one! I can’t believe you so completely lack any clue as to what you’re talking about. Please read Roe then we’ll talk.

  34. @stillxsearching

    I don’t believe for a second that you are a lawyer. However as you have pointed out in conflicting cases, there may or may not be interpretations of amendments that imply a “right to privacy”, however it is not specifically enumerated, and could be granted or removed by the Supreme Court at any time. That said, current judicial precedent only indicates that the federal government cannot restrict abortion. The Tenth Amendment is long due for a challenge in the courts, and may give the States the right to determine whether abortion is or is not legal. There are plenty of examples of states specifically allowing or banning things contrary to the federal government’s stance- medicinal marijuana, assisted suicide, etc. Eventually there will be a major 10th Amendment case that will either re-establish States rights, or remove them.

  35. @stillxsearching

    And I still am convinced you’re a moronic fucktard.

  36. ROFL okay I’m sorry I can’t take you seriously anymore because you are so clueless.

    Roe ruled that a TEXAS (not federal!!!!) statute was UNCONSTITUTIONAL – and not becase of anything to do with the 10th Amendment, but see the quote I posted above. The Court found that a woman’s choice to have an abortion was a personal, private choice that is encompassed by the Constitutional right to privacy (which yes, could cease to exist at any time, but for the time being, does exist) and, therefore, Texas’ law which punished a woman for making that choice was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and must be struck down. AFAIK there has never been an abortion case decided on 10th Amd grounds, though there may have been one that I’m just not aware of, but either way, Roe was definitely not one.

    Obviously you’ve resorted to name-calling because you no longer have any legitimate response to anything I say, and have realized you are wrong. When will you just admit it so these commenters can get back to trolling and having fun?

    -stillxsearching, Esquire

  37. I never SAID roe was a 10th Amendment case, in fact I’ve said specifically that it was not. And honestly I don’t care. Abortion has not been fought on a 10th Amendment grounds, but it could be should a State such as Kansas outright ban it, and fight it as a 10th Amendment case in the courts.

  38. 1) You said: “Roe v. Wade established that SCOTUS believed in the 70s that there was no part of the Constitution that specifically allowed the federal government to ban abortion, doesn’t mean a State can’t ban it” … the fact that that’s completely incorrect aside, you are stating that you believed that Roe was decided on 10th Amd grounds. Where do you “specifically say that it was not” because I must have missed that.

    2) It could ONLY be fought on 10th Amd grounds if the federal government passed an abortion law. IF, hypothetically, Kansas banned it outright and then challenged their right to ban it on 10th Amendment grounds, it would lose immediately because the 10th Amd is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The court would say something like: “Kansas, as a state, does in fact have the option to make laws about abortion; Congress was not granted this power therefore it is reserved for the states. However, nothing – including the 10th Amendment – gives Kansas the right to make a law that is in violation of the US Constitution. The Constitution, as interpreted in R v. W, says that a woman has a Constitutional right to make this choice. Any statute which completely bans abortion takes this Constitutional right away from the woman. No state is allowed to pass a law in violation of the US Constitution. Therefore, the law is invalid and void as unconsitutional, and it may not be enforced.”

    When are you going to stop embarassing yourself?

  39. so, any of you guys had an abortion?

  40. ^tensionbreaker!!! And i give the match, by landslide, to stillxsearching

  41. Wow. I was wondering what the abortion thingy was…

  42. Hawkbit, whilst I agree stillxsearching seemed to have a more fluid and direct argument style that was focussed solely on showcasing facts and references, I’m a huge fan of smacd’s post-internet guerrilla stylee argument tactics.
    His/her’s is a much under-appreciated style of online hit’n'run sarcastic vitriol that adds hugely to the entertainment that would otherwise be sorely missing from this comedy danse macabre.

  43. fundamentallybroken

    Best comment thread I’ve seen here. And stillxsearching is not only absolutely correct, but also is definitely a lawyer. Nonlaws can’t bluebook like that.

  44. fundamentallybroken if that’s your best then you haven’t been around much.

  45. sorry for hijacking the thread yesterday everyone. i just hate smug assholes, enjoy putting them in their place, and was bored at the moment :) you are now free to troll … so uhh … what’s the difference between a pile of aborted fetuses and a ferrari?

  46. i’d enjoy one in my driveway?

  47. WAITWAITWAIT. There is nothing wrong with Kansas, as long as you live in the NE corner of the state (yes, with OP and Kansas City and Lawrence.)

    Now, anywhere WEST of Topeka (arguably Lawrence) is where only five people live, and a bunch of sheep for when they get lonely. But still, even that is better than what is East of Kansas.

  48. re waitwaitwait: ugh you clearly cant count or add…

  49. Sorry Dutchess, but anyone who thinks ludicrous is spelled like the rapper — I just can’t even listen to the rest.

  50. Hey, I just wanted to clear some things up. I know who posted it and “Bladez” is not her real name, and she is the girl. The other one– Jaycee– is the guy. And no, she shouldn’t be a mother. It’s a scary thought. And it is legal in Kansas but the closest one to where she lives was killed a couple years back.

  51. Wow, I actually know Jaycee very well. No offense to them, but neither of them should have children. People are going to have very mixed feelings about having a child. Sucks for them though.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.