SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Breccia]

The answer: politics.

I 70% agree. But let's not rule out racism, misogyny, and antiquated beliefs. Keeping women barefoot and in the kitchen is pretty conservative. I mean, name one woman Trump put in charge of anything other than
a) DeVos, who bought her way in
b) a spokesblonde
c) his daughter

[Ivanstone]

I 70% agree. But let's not rule out racism, misogyny, and antiquated beliefs. Keeping women barefoot and in the kitchen is pretty conservative. I mean, name one woman Trump put in charge of anything other than
a) DeVos, who bought her way in
b) a spokesblonde
c) his daughter

As POTUS he had a lot of his choices thrust upon him. DeVos, for example, was a package deal with Pence. Any other GOP politician would’ve done the same. As a businessman he would frequently hire lots of women to work for him. Of course, he did it because he felt female employees were more compliant than male ones or they were hired because of their looks.

[cubby]

I tell you what: you find literally one single case of government that gives any kind of government benefit to any unborn children. Any instance of Medicare of Medicaid for the child (I said child not mother), unborn children being counted in the census, unborn children getting food stamps, that kind of thing.

Oh, and don't think you can get away with "you can't murder them" because you can't murder a tourist or illegal immigrant, either.

Literally one single case where an unborn child is treated as a citizen. One. Then, we'll talk about their rights.

You have 24 hours. Clock started 9 months ago.

I see what you did there.

Unfortunately, while dangy's efforts will be in vain, you might have just painted a picture of the future.

[enigma77]

So states should decide whether you have to donate your kidney to save another person, rather than yourself deciding?

I mean that's a strange analogy. If I do not donate a kidney to you, I'm choosing not to save you, what's killing you is your disease. Also donating a kidney while survivable is detrimental to my own health and wellbeing. If I abort a child, I choose to kill it, I am the cause of death. A pregnancy in most cases is not detrimental to the mother's health and if it is then an abortion is justified.

There is a difference between not taking an action that can save a life (especially if it comes at great personal cost) and willfully taking one.

[cubby]

I mean that's a strange analogy. If I do not donate a kidney to you, I'm choosing not to save you, what's killing you is your disease. Also donating a kidney while survivable is detrimental to my own health and wellbeing. If I abort a child, I choose to kill it, I am the cause of death. A pregnancy in most cases is not detrimental to the mother's health and if it is then an abortion is justified.

There is a difference between not taking an action that can save a life (especially if it comes at great personal cost) and willfully taking one.

No, you're missing the bigger picture; in both cases you're deciding what to do with your body. Not donating a kidney and terminating a pregnancy are the same fundamental decisions.

[Endus]

I mean that's a strange analogy. If I do not donate a kidney to you, I'm choosing not to save you, what's killing you is your disease. Also donating a kidney while survivable is detrimental to my own health and wellbeing. If I abort a child, I choose to kill it, I am the cause of death. A pregnancy in most cases is not detrimental to the mother's health and if it is then an abortion is justified.

This is an intentionally dishonest framing.

Abortion is, fundamentally, removing the protection and support of the womb from the fetus. At which point, the fetus dies, since it's unable to maintain the basic functions of life by itself. The pregnant woman is choosing not to save the fetus. That's literally the process, and it's no different from the organ donation analogy in this.

As I've said, at best, fetal personhood provides an argument that the abortion techniques used should remove the fetus intact. They do not provide any legitimate argument to deny women the right to said abortion, in the first place. And in practice, it's a useless argument since the fetus won't survive detachment at the stage of development the vast majority of abortions occur at, because it can't sustain itself. It would die naturally. That isn't the mother or doctor "killing it", that's a natural death. Fetal personhood is a straw man, intended to avoid rational discussion of people's human rights and make a completely meritless and dishonest emotional plea based on what is, fundamentally and irrevocably, a lie.

Also, pregnancies carry all kinds of risks and arguing that they're just normal and don't pose a threat to the woman is willful ignorance.

[Edge-]

I mean that's a strange analogy. If I do not donate a kidney to you, I'm choosing not to save you, what's killing you is your disease.

Not at all, this is the opposite way of looking at it. If you choose not to donate a kidney, you're choosing to have full control over your bodily autonomy. Which, I may point out, extends beyond death. If you are not an organ donor but have healthy organs, doctors literally can't touch your body to transplant an organ and save another persons life. Literally, when you're dead, you have full bodily autonomy, still.

Also donating a kidney while survivable is detrimental to my own health and wellbeing.

It requires adjustments to your lifestyle often times, yes, but you can continue to live a perfectly long and healthy life with only one kidney.

If I abort a child, I choose to kill it, I am the cause of death.

No, this is still about bodily autonomy, something the state does not have any right to supercede. A "child" is born, what is in the womb for most of the pregnancy is by no definition a "child".

A pregnancy in most cases is not detrimental to the mother's health and if it is then an abortion is justified.

This would be cool and all if many states weren't seeking to criminalize abortions that were medically necessary to protect the mother. Or penalize them for miscarrying.

There is a difference between not taking an action that can save a life (especially if it comes at great personal cost) and willfully taking one.

No, there's no fundamental difference here. Because the core question in both cases is, "Does this individual have bodily autonomy? Or does the state supersede that bodily autonomy?" Because if it's the latter, that opens the door to organ harvesting of the dead to save the living. There are millions and millions of people who die with healthy organs but are not donors, and they don't need to livers, hearts, lungs, kidneys, or other organs anymore. So given your position on abortion, it stands to reason that the same logic would be applied to the dead.

[cubby]

This is an intentionally dishonest framing.

Abortion is, fundamentally, removing the protection and support of the womb from the fetus. At which point, the fetus dies, since it's unable to maintain the basic functions of life by itself. The pregnant woman is choosing not to save the fetus. That's literally the process, and it's no different from the organ donation analogy in this.

As I've said, at best, fetal personhood provides an argument that the abortion techniques used should remove the fetus intact. They do not provide any legitimate argument to deny women the right to said abortion, in the first place. And in practice, it's a useless argument since the fetus won't survive detachment at the stage of development the vast majority of abortions occur at, because it can't sustain itself. It would die naturally. That isn't the mother or doctor "killing it", that's a natural death. Fetal personhood is a straw man, intended to avoid rational discussion of people's human rights and make a completely meritless and dishonest emotional plea based on what is, fundamentally and irrevocably, a lie.

Also, pregnancies carry all kinds of risks and arguing that they're just normal and don't pose a threat to the woman is willful ignorance.

Could you give us a little picture of hope and remind us what actual civilized countries have as their abortion policies? How does Canada handle this?

[Endus]

Could you give us a little picture of hope and remind us what actual civilized countries have as their abortion policies? How does Canada handle this?

Abortion decisions are 100% behind a pregnant woman and her doctor and precisely no one else except, in theory, a medical ethics review board, which operates off best practices and not any political angle. There's literally no special laws singling out abortion from among any other medical practices, here. We've had some echoes of pro-life garbage cropping up in the Conservative leadership race going on right now, which is making the current government consider enshrining a right to abortion specifically into federal law, but that's a response against the rise of bigotry, rather than a need to single out abortion specifically.

Been that way for more than 30 years and we've got precisely no problems. Among the lowest abortion rates in the developed world, too, so it's not like it's provoked a massive increase in abortions.

[omeomorfismo]

I mean that's a strange analogy. If I do not donate a kidney to you, I'm choosing not to save you, what's killing you is your disease. Also donating a kidney while survivable is detrimental to my own health and wellbeing. If I abort a child, I choose to kill it, I am the cause of death. A pregnancy in most cases is not detrimental to the mother's health and if it is then an abortion is justified.

There is a difference between not taking an action that can save a life (especially if it comes at great personal cost) and willfully taking one.

last time having a child growing inside is detrimental to wellbeing, you cant run, you cant do fatigue, you have nausea, fucking hormones kicking your emotional state as in a rollercoster.
with your mindset we could force anyone to donate blood constantly for months like in the last mad max movie XD

[Rasulis]

A Texas woman needed an abortion. Here's how far California went to help her

The first sign of Stephanie's pregnancy was nausea, as it so often is — that particular debilitating queasiness that knocked her off her feet, sometimes all day, days at a time.

It kept Stephanie, who asked me not to use her real name for all the obvious reasons, from working. She runs her own business in Austin, Texas, braiding hair, a skill she learned as a teenager.

Stephanie, 33, prayed about the pregnancy. She ran through her savings being off work. She thought about the bills a baby would bring, what it would mean for her kids, and for her own future. Then she decided to have an abortion.

"Where I am at in my life, I am on a journey where I am still trying to find myself, trying to be the best mother I can be," she said. "And I feel like it’s hard enough already and I don’t want to bring another child into this world."

After the positive test, she went to a Texas clinic. She was only about six weeks pregnant, but they found a heartbeat and that was that. Suddenly the Texas law was about her, and her future narrowed down to panic and fear.

"Before I went though this situation, I really didn’t care," she said of the Texas law. "But then when it affected me, it was like, 'Oh, s—.' "

She said the clinic basically kicked her out. She was crying, and she went back inside to ask if they knew anyone who could help her. The answer was a hard no. Luckily, a friend persuaded her to call Planned Parenthood in Texas that day, and that clinic got her in touch with the Los Angeles office. She said she was thinking there was no way she could get to California, but her friend told her to make the call anyway, a last-ditch hope.

"Immediately they were so helpful," Stephanie said. "They were concerned. They made me feel good in that moment. Everybody down here just turns up their nose."

The coordinator who handled her call got to work, Stephanie said. Planned Parenthood booked her flights between Texas and L.A. — 1,242 miles each way — and paid for them. They arranged transportation and a hotel — and paid for those, too. They even gave her money to pay for incidentals such as food.

But it was the way they made her feel that she remembers most, "like it wasn't an embarrassment or a shame," she said.

She was at the lowest point in her life and she found "love from strangers," she said.

She flew in on a Monday and had the procedure on a Tuesday, then headed home to her kids the next day. No complications, no drama.

"I didn't expect all this," she said. And that's why she's willing to talk about it. She thinks the Texas law is "trash" but California welcomes those in need.

"I want people to know that in this life you cannot judge anyone," she said. "I also want people to know there is help and support out there. Don’t feel alone, don’t feel embarrassed, do what’s best for you."

[enigma77]

Not at all, this is the opposite way of looking at it. If you choose not to donate a kidney, you're choosing to have full control over your bodily autonomy. Which, I may point out, extends beyond death. If you are not an organ donor but have healthy organs, doctors literally can't touch your body to transplant an organ and save another persons life. Literally, when you're dead, you have full bodily autonomy, still.






No, this is still about bodily autonomy, something the state does not have any right to supercede. A "child" is born, what is in the womb for most of the pregnancy is by no definition a "child".






No, there's no fundamental difference here. Because the core question in both cases is, "Does this individual have bodily autonomy? Or does the state supersede that bodily autonomy?" Because if it's the latter, that opens the door to organ harvesting of the dead to save the living. There are millions and millions of people who die with healthy organs but are not donors, and they don't need to livers, hearts, lungs, kidneys, or other organs anymore. So given your position on abortion, it stands to reason that the same logic would be applied to the dead.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. Which is totally okay.

[Endus]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. Which is totally okay.

No, it fucking isn't. Not when your position is fundamentally predicated on the abuse and subjugation of women. There's no "agreeing to disagree" over that kind of misogyny.

[Edge-]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. Which is totally okay.

Not really when we're talking about peoples fundamental rights. That's like saying we disagree on the topic of slavery which like, we may, but the "pro-slavery" argument is not "totally okay".

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right. Period. No exceptions. Even when it comes to vaccinations. You can choose not to get them, but choosing may limit your ability to say, go to private stores that require proof of vaccinations for customers. That's their right. Just as it would be to deny service to vaccinated customers.

Y'all keep forgetting the ramifications of letting a bakery choose not to serve gay couples.

[enigma77]

Not really when we're talking about peoples fundamental rights. That's like saying we disagree on the topic of slavery which like, we may, but the "pro-slavery" argument is not "totally okay".

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right. Period. No exceptions. Even when it comes to vaccinations. You can choose not to get them, but choosing may limit your ability to say, go to private stores that require proof of vaccinations for customers. That's their right. Just as it would be to deny service to vaccinated customers.

Y'all keep forgetting the ramifications of letting a bakery choose not to serve gay couples.

I appreciate your viewpoint and your passion, but I do not think you'll change my mind, to me abortion is a form of murder, the deliberate destruction of human life, immature as it may be. No amount of talk about bodily autonomy will change that simple truth. And I really don't believe that the organ transplant analogy makes any sense, nobody wants to force people to donate organs against their will, people want to stop people from killing unborn children. And as I said previously forcing people to donate a kidney is not the same thing as stopping an abortion, since there is a difference between killing and not saving people. Another poster argued that an abortion is the same thing, i.e. choosing not to save the child. I disagree with that viewpoint strongly, you can't claim you're merely not saving a life when you are the direct cause of its death.

Also for what it's worth I think comparing people who disapprove of abortion to proponents of slavery does not serve your side well.

[Edge-]

I appreciate your viewpoint and your passion, but I do not think you'll change my mind, to me abortion is a form of murder, the deliberate destruction of human life, immature as it may be.

It's interesting that this concern only extends to abortion and not say...prenatal care to ensure the health of the woman and growing baby are protected. Or postnatal care. Or really healthcare for the woman or growing baby/born baby at all given that, oddly enough, most of the "pro-life" states have the highest rates of maternal and infant mortality in the US, and rates that are closer to that of third world countries.

Kinda hard to say, "Life is sacred!" while doing nothing to actually show you believe it outside of attacking womens bodily autonomy.

No amount of talk about bodily autonomy will change that simple truth.

Belief*

And I really don't believe that the organ transplant analogy makes any sense, nobody wants to force people to donate organs against their will, people want to stop people from killing unborn children.

It's literally the same logic: If losing bodily autonomy to save lives matters for women, why should it suddenly be irrelevant for corpses, who don't even have a vested interest in bodily autonomy anymore given that they're like...you know...dead.

And as I said previously forcing people to donate a kidney is not the same thing as stopping an abortion, since there is a difference between killing and not saving people.

Except it's not "killing" anyone. Fetuses aren't people yet, hence why when anti-bodily autonomy activists are asked to identify if a fetus is a human being or not they usually say, "Yes! Of course! I can 100% positively identify that the fetus you are showing me is actually a human being!" only to find out it's a dolphin, lol.

[Ivanstone]

Even when it comes to vaccinations.

Your own pregnancy has no bearing on anyone else besides yourself.

Vaccinations arguably harm your own bodily autonomy. Being unvaccinated hurts everyone else’s bodily autonomy.

[Edge-]

Your own pregnancy has no bearing on anyone else besides yourself.

Vaccinations arguably harm your own bodily autonomy. Being unvaccinated hurts everyone else’s bodily autonomy.

I agree, but I don't agree with forced mandates, either. I do, however, agree with institutions like schools requiring them - or proof of why someone can't be vaccinated such as medical issues - for attendance, or companies requiring them for employment. Which largely exists. There's the "social mandate", not a government mandate, and the "social mandate" is perfectly fine.

[Ivanstone]

I appreciate your viewpoint and your passion, but I do not think you'll change my mind, to me abortion is a form of murder, the deliberate destruction of human life, immature as it may be.

Let’s get grisly here. Keep in mind, you stand for this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deat...a_Halappanavar
“ On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway after complaining of back pain, but was ultimately discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling "something coming down," and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]: 22–26 [8]: 29 [9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]: 33 [10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors' efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, at the age of 31, and died.“

An abortion would’ve saved her life. Ireland has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. America’s is an embarrassment. I can’t blame women for being terrified.

[Edge-]

Let’s get grisly here. Keep in mind, you stand for this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deat...a_Halappanavar
“ On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway after complaining of back pain, but was ultimately discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling "something coming down," and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]: 22–26 [8]: 29 [9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]: 33 [10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors' efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, at the age of 31, and died.“

An abortion would’ve saved her life. Ireland has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. America’s is an embarrassment. I can’t blame women for being terrified.

And worth noting: Ireland ended the ban in 2018. There are still some limits (12 weeks), but with broad exceptions if the health of the woman is at risk.

While the world moves forward in protecting bodily autonomy, America is sliding backwards. And we're supposed to be the "land of freedom".