SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Levelfive]

For starters, if a woman menstruates she should be charged with murder since that egg could have been fertilized and become a human. She chose not to get pregnant that month and thus denied life to something that could have been. Denying life is the same as killing. It doesn't matter if she never had sex that month, or even if she had sex but was unsuccessful. If God didn't want her to go to jail he would've made it happen, so by not getting pregnant God must really want her to be in jail. Because of the aforementioned, conjugal visits are mandatory and a partner will be supplied in the event one isn't freely available. Male prison guards have been doing this service for years already in preparation. What visionaries!

Also, if a man masturbates he should be charged with murder as well. I'm uncertain if it should be considered singular murder or mass murder. His sperm can realistically only be used for one pregnancy, but there are millions of sperm so maybe mass murder is still on the table. Oral sex and anal sex will be outlawed for the same reason. In fact, oral sex gets the additional charge of cannibalism. You might be wondering if forcing women to give birth to a child they're unable to provide for will result in an increase in a need for social welfare programs. The answer is yes, emphatically. Will additional funding be provided to those in dire need? Please, let's not be silly here.

The first part is beautiful--chef's kiss! The second part misses the mark that this whole thing is anything besides punishing women while giving men a free pass. They would never do anything to interfere with their own rights or pleasure.

[Mihalik]

Just visiting for my monthly infraction to say that this ruling is amazing but sadly doesn't go far enough. The power will be returned to the states so don't worry if you live in a Blue state, you can still scramble, boil and snip babies in the womb. For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.

Peace.

It's not the Democrats that are trying to legalize marrying children.

Just saying.

[Nastard]

The first part is beautiful--chef's kiss! The second part misses the mark that this whole thing is anything besides punishing women while giving men a free pass. They would never do anything to interfere with their own rights or pleasure.

Ah crap, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking! In all my indiscriminate punishment I lost sight of what is truly important; and that's that the RIGHT lives must be destroyed for the sake of preserving life. Okay, so a revision... In the event of a male masturbating a woman shall be chosen at random to receive punishment. If a man has to resort to handling things himself it's only because it's the fault of a woman for not servicing him and every woman shares that burden since they're all equally at fault. In the event a wealthy, famous, or republican's wife is randomly selected, that choice will be discarded and redrawn until the correct criteria is met.

[Levelfive]

Ah crap, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking! In all my indiscriminate punishment I lost sight of what is truly important; and that's that the RIGHT lives must be destroyed for the sake of preserving life. Okay, so a revision... In the event of a male masturbating a woman shall be chosen at random to receive punishment. If a man has to resort to handling things himself it's only because it's the fault of a woman for not servicing him and every woman shares that burden since they're all equally at fault. In the event a wealthy, famous, or republican's wife is randomly selected, that choice will be discarded and redrawn until the correct criteria is met.

THERE we go, covers everything--perfect!

[Jastall]

States do all kind of ridiculous left-wing garbage against the second amendment, rights regarding religious expression, and free speech rights. I'm not standing for a holier-than-thou attitude on Republican-dominant legislatures. One distinction is you're talking about proposed bills, not passed bills, and still subject to debate and vote within the legislature. You're ignoring an important pruning process to raise hype on "they're trying to X!"

They don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And they don't have the required House or Senate majorities for a constitutional amendment.

The good old "rights only exist in terms of government welfare" argument. You have the right to purchase a gun for lawful self-defense, but the government doesn't have to subsidize your purchase in order for your second-amendment rights to exist.

It's more appropriate to say the National Review knows widely available chemical abortion pills is a current issue for the pro-life movement to address. Remember that it also cheers reversals to chemical abortions, APR or Abortion-Pill Reversal, criticizes the FDA decisions and safety of them.

Amazing that California's voters were able to vote, through their representatives, on the issue of abortion. You'd get the impression from dozens of posters here that every state relied on a bunch of male judges for the last 50 years.

Interestingly enough, if the pro-choice crowd had made actual attempts are persuasion and legislation in this time period across all states, they might be in a better position now. If this decision stands close to the leaked draft, they'll have to reboot efforts from next to nil, if they truly believe they have a persuasive argument regarding early-term abortions or full-9-month-legal abortions.

It might drive some Dem turnout. On the flip side, senators like Tim Ryan running in purple states are forced to choose between the activists no-restrictions-whatsoever woman-and-doctor-only, and moderate positions that have better support. Tim Ryan specifically was asked if he supported any restrictions whatsoever in late-term abortions, and said 'you've got to leave it up to the woman.' I think his chances of election dropped significantly.

Strong disagreements, indeed. I don't think implicit comparison of developing babies to donated organs, or comparisons between pro-life and slavery, is going to help the pro-choice side politically.

"Potential life" is in the law because it is in Roe. The rights of the developing baby are explicitly weighed against the pregnant woman's health in the decision. I don't care if you dislike how I term "future citizen," but there will be an explicit weighing of those interests in the law. Also, nice anti-religion-chest-thumping. Telling people they're wrong and they don't actually believe the side they're arguing for is part of the reason that the pro-choice argument never made any gains for decades, according to polling.

It's good to see you agree with my point. This is the current belief. Canpinter was wrong.

Surprisingly enough, redoubling your efforts in justifying why you're doing this and feel fine doing this is absolutely confirmation that the pro-choice movement holds the following things and makes no attempts to hide them. I thank you for your honesty and confirmation. Twice in the same post.

Ectopic pregnancies are acknowledged as a medical necessity, and a non-viable pregnancy. They're already covered in life-of-the-mother exemptions (and both lives are threatened by them, the uterus is the only place for life to continue). The same goes for D&C to complete a miscarriage. No pro-life person I've met, nor pro-life law I've seen passed, prohibits medical treatment for the condition with life-threatening consequences for the mother, and no hope for life for the child.

You beat me to the main response.

Republicans are indeed happy for people that go further than the debate to declare this is not a debatable issue and no ethical problems are involved. If major pro-choice activists saw how much aid this gave Republicans politically, I think they'd drop that position immediately. Even if someone swears that they agree there are ethical issues implicated, they can't help the fact that rational observers see that the opposite comes across.

So, you know I'm against the court having an active role in setting policy. I'm fine with states setting out an abortion policy that their constituents approve of in moral value and results. How else to chart the results to the court deciding that the constitution does not grant a fundamental right to abortion? I say that's a distinct move in the correct direction of relieving the court of it's policy-making project. You can argue "no policy, is a policy" if you want to get into semantics.

"Withholding a verdict" is an absolutely poor way of saying "No verdict was actually made, they withheld a stay." Stays are granted under different criteria, and explicitly are made before any verdict is made.

For sake of argument, let's take under consideration 1.3%. It's an undercount, and states like New Mexico hit considerably higher. Taking the CDC number for sake of argument, that amounts to something around 8500-12000 viable babies every year. I use the gun violence analogy, because it's regularly claimed that there's too many guns and gun crimes are epidemic. 2020 involved gun murder/homicide numbers of 13,620. Very comparable numbers, and worth taking into the debate. On-the-order of 10,000 a year absolutely must be in the debate, and policies that forbid restrictions on them must be weighed on merits, not percent rarity.

I was also bringing up late-term vs early-term, because Democrats are the furthest from the public on not supporting restrictions as the pregnant mother enters her final weeks of pregnancy. Terms of compromise center around "at least let the woman whose contraception fails, or just learned she was pregnant, to terminate at that point." As the weeks get closer to 40, and early deliveries of a healthy child imbued with a full set of constitutional and legal rights gain a high percentage, this argument collapses and adoption and restriction gain in force. This is a compromise from the personhood argument of developing life in the womb, not proof that it never mattered in the first place.

Guttmacher estimated rape at 1%, incest at 0.5%.A later survey concluded that both were overestimates. Read earlier in this post for my thoughts on ectopic pregnancies.

Sigh, same old just-like-slavery-before-it to you. Just state for the record whether my thoughts on the real debating ground for abortion in law make you suspect I want states to decide to reinstitute slavery, segregation, bans on interracial marriage, etc. The secret motives of evil men are an un-falsifiable topic. I could say, if I were as flippant, that people wanting the Supreme Court as their master legislator are the same kinds of people that secretly stan Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott. You're happy to make comparisons to antebellum America when it comes to the Fugitive Slave Act, but what about the court? The Court's got the ruling scepter, after all, and the law's the law. Who are we to question? Never mind the denials, we're in un-falsifiable claims now, so it's only a smokescreen.

You say you're against the court settling policy but the exact same court isn't even hiding that it has a policy and an agenda, and was nominated specifically to enact it. I don't particularly blame the American right here, it's how the bread has been buttered since at least the New Deal, but pretending otherwise when they rule in your favor is at best disingenuous. There are plenty of Supreme Courts around the world that aren't politicized up the whazoo, but SCOTUS is not one of them.

21 weeks does not a viable baby make. The very link you posted rebuking Guttmacher estimates partial birth abortions from as low to 2K to as high as 5.5K; it's hard to determine what is and what isn't partial birth as it's not really a medical term, and due to the myriad of factors involved it's nigh on impossible to truly know how many of those were viable fetuses (which is also a varible definition). In short, it's a fraction of a percentage of abortions, and if the cases of rape/incest/etc are too rare to be legislated around then so should so-called late term abortions.

That's not actually my position, by the way. I do think partial births are an ethical quandary. As are the other noted exceptions. Which is why a comprehensive national law taking all of this into account would be far, far better for women nationwide than a patchwork of 50+ legislations in 50+ states that may or may not take into account all of this and can and will be circumvented by a wide variety of means. Making abortion illegal, or partially so, in state X but fully legal in nearby state Y only disadvantages those women who do not have the means, time and/or capacity to move to get it. In the absence of such a comprehensive law, Roe v Wade was definitely the lesser ethical evil than some of the already abusive laws seen on display in some States, and Roe isn't even actually repealed yet.

As for state's rights, McConnel has already said it would certainly be possible to ban abortion nationwide. He didn't bristle and say "oh but no that's a state right". This is the man who has driven conservative policy in America more than anyone else in the last decade+. The memo that started this whole discussion has a judge of the court say in no ambiguous terms that indeed, homosexual rights and interracial marriage may be next in the line of fire. This is not "the secret motives of evil men". This is the actual motives of people who actually exist and who have actual power and will to enact their policies. Again, context matters and you seem all to happy to ignore it when it serves your purposes.

[Draco-Onis]

They'll go after the LGBT next.

GOP Senators Call For Warning Label On “Disturbing” LGBTQ Content In Kids’ TV Shows
https://deadline.com/2022/05/gop-sen...ds-1235018212/

Its basically the roadmap of the states Abortion - LGBTQ - School "indoctrination" - Segregation, the entire goal is to bring this country as close as they can to the days of slavery.

[Ivanstone]

For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.

Is it a good time to revisit Daily KOS's GOP Sex Offender List? Why yes it is! Pt 31 is up.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...Enablers-Pt-31

21 out of 25 involved crimes against children. Stay classy conservatives.

[D3thray]

There wasn't anything "subjective" in what I said there.

And you weren't agreeing with me; you were looking at the wild inconsistencies created by irrational misogynistic laws and claiming that they're the result of laws "lacking the granularity".

That's lunacy. It's because the laws are irrational and predicated on premises that they don't openly express. It isn't an innate feature of law itself, and it's not that hard to write laws that don't run into those kinds of issues.

You actually believe your opinions aren’t subjective? Because your entire response was an opinion. And if you’re so great at crafting laws that account for every possibility, even the ones you don’t think of, why don’t you get involved yourself?

The hubris to actually believe your opinions are objective reality… if someone agrees with you, why does it matter how they got there? Some seriously narcissistic behavior right there.

[Endus]

You actually believe your opinions aren’t subjective? Because your entire response was an opinion.

Ideas like "I don't like avocado, I think it tastes gross" is subjective.

Ideas like "women are people and deserve the same rights as anyone" really aren't. That's the default natural state. You've got to invent special exceptions to bring about anything else.

And if you’re so great at crafting laws that account for every possibility, even the ones you don’t think of, why don’t you get involved yourself?

Because there's plenty of people even better than I am at it who've already done the job, for the most part.

Also, I have gotten involved. I've written draft legislation and handed it over to governmental groups for discussion and implementation. So kinda swing and a miss there.

[Mihalik]

You actually believe your opinions aren’t subjective? Because your entire response was an opinion. And if you’re so great at crafting laws that account for every possibility, even the ones you don’t think of, why don’t you get involved yourself?

The hubris to actually believe your opinions are objective reality… if someone agrees with you, why does it matter how they got there? Some seriously narcissistic behavior right there.

I don't believe that you believe your own fucking bullshit.

"We're banning abortions except when it's a raped or molested woman or child or when the pregnancy is likely to kill or harm the woman".

I just wrote a nuanced abortion law for you.

It wasn't so hard now, was it you psychopath!

Also if you can't fucking write a law that has the most minimum amount of human decency in it perhaps you shouldn't be writing laws now should you?

Not to mention...for every single "late term" or whatnot abortion there are like a 1000 terminations related to medical factors like miscarriages and shit, but that's neither here nor there.

You and your ilk don't give a fuck about human lives. You don't even give a fuck about children. This has fuckall to do with children.

You just want to demean, dehumanize, punish, hurt, murder women.

Your opinion as you put it, is that women are breeding mares and that you get to determine when and how they have children, not them.

And my opinion is that that makes you a sociopath.

I'm so exhausted about having to argue human rights with sociopaths.

Not to mention. Alito managed to churn out 90 pages psychopathic drivel that's mostly based on the philosophical musings of 17th century maniac whose greatest contributions to Common law include gems like witch trials, executing women for abortions and reinforcing the legality of marital rape. Yet, somehow, in those 90 fucking pages of drivel he also found room for "adoption markets" and conspiracy theories, but just couldn't find room for including a single word on the necessity of curtailing some of the absolute worst impulses of religious lunatics writing legislation that would either murder women or imprison women for miscarriages.

This entire argument is retarded beyond belief.

[Darththeo]

You actually believe your opinions aren’t subjective? Because your entire response was an opinion. And if you’re so great at crafting laws that account for every possibility, even the ones you don’t think of, why don’t you get involved yourself?

The hubris to actually believe your opinions are objective reality… if someone agrees with you, why does it matter how they got there? Some seriously narcissistic behavior right there.

There are certain things where an opinion to the contrary isn't reasonable to deal with. There are certain things where no matter the "opinion" you cannot compromise with. This is one of those things, the issue is you have one side saying the mother's rights matter more and another who says the baby's rights matter more while providing no additional proof of that. Child support does not begin until birth, child credit and life insurance does not start until birth.

I would have more respect for anti-abortion stance if said stance was consistent. As it stands now, the vast majority to near all say the only thing that the fetus has is the right to be born.

[qwerty123456]

Ideas like "I don't like avocado, I think it tastes gross" is subjective.

Ideas like "women are people and deserve the same rights as anyone" really aren't. That's the default natural state. You've got to invent special exceptions to bring about anything else.

I wouldn't call it the default natural state. The default natural state for humans if history has told us anything is myself/my groups need's/wants over everyone elses.
But we shouldn't be going for the default natural state anyways we should be striving to be better than that.


I'll never understand the conservative viewpoint on abortions:
"We don't want more brown people so let's stop them from getting abortions!"
"Liberal's are brainwashing their kids so let's ban abortions so they are forced to have more kids!"
"You won't get into heaven if you have an abortion but I hate you for X reason and wouldn't want to see you in heaven anyways!"
"I don't want to pay for some poor woman's kids! Let's stop her from getting an abortion!"

Abortions basically solve all their perceived problems with society. You would think they would try and do something like getting abortion clinics put in only poor areas with like half off prices for minorities or something.

[Rasulis]

The number of companies offering expanded abortion coverage is growing rapidly. If the leaked draft pass as it was written, I believe it will open a floodgate. Yes, it is likely that the decision is economically driven. Primarily to protect the ability to hire qualified people. Note that so far, the majorities are companies that heavily recruit college grads (engineers, scientists, financial analysts, etc.) which primarily hail from liberal universities. I would be really impressed if Walmar offers those benefits to their in-store sales personnel. Especially since 70% of Walmart stores are located in anti-abortion states.

[Poopymonster]

The number of companies offering expanded abortion coverage is growing rapidly. If the leaked draft pass as it was written, I believe it will open a floodgate. Yes, it is likely that the decision is economically driven. Primarily to protect the ability to hire qualified people. Note that so far, the majorities are companies that heavily recruit college grads (engineers, scientists, financial analysts, etc.) which primarily hail from liberal universities. I would be really impressed if Walmar offers those benefits to their in-store sales personnel. Especially since 70% of Walmart stores are located in anti-abortion states.

Walmart will offer their employees either
A: "Great Value Delete-a-Fetus" kiosks set up in the pharmacy that give a pill, a hand vac, and a dozen pads.
B: "Sam's Club Insta-Doula" stations, for when an employee is giving birth right-the-fuck-now, it'll teleconference you to a Fully trained* doula in Bangladesh who will talk you through giving birth in the monsoon season where the call center is located.
Regardles of which, you have 30 minutes, it counts as your lunch break.

Services vary by location.

*Saw a youtube video.

[Fugus]

I wouldn't call it the default natural state. The default natural state for humans if history has told us anything is myself/my groups need's/wants over everyone elses.
But we shouldn't be going for the default natural state anyways we should be striving to be better than that.


I'll never understand the conservative viewpoint on abortions:
"We don't want more brown people so let's stop them from getting abortions!"
"Liberal's are brainwashing their kids so let's ban abortions so they are forced to have more kids!"
"You won't get into heaven if you have an abortion but I hate you for X reason and wouldn't want to see you in heaven anyways!"
"I don't want to pay for some poor woman's kids! Let's stop her from getting an abortion!"

Abortions basically solve all their perceived problems with society. You would think they would try and do something like getting abortion clinics put in only poor areas with like half off prices for minorities or something.

You are trying to apply reasoning to unreasonable people and views.

Think of it from this mindset, “Cruelty is the point” full stop. Don’t think beyond that and you will understand it.

They don’t think beyond that, quite literally I had family who calls democrats devil worshippers to justify the actual evil stuff he was supporting. He didn’t think of it beyond terms of winning and losing and the ends justified the means.

That’s the way many of them think.

[Endus]

I wouldn't call it the default natural state. The default natural state for humans if history has told us anything is myself/my groups need's/wants over everyone elses.

This isn't that complicated a concept.

Do you believe women are naturally, inherently inferior to men? Yes or no.

If you answer "no", you agree with me. And if you answer "yes", well, we're gonna have a talk about the misogyny.

Once you start adding in societal dynamics and structures, as you're doing, you're creating prejudices and such that don't reflect that baseline any more, and I'm not interested in how unequal early societies may have been, because that's not my point.

But we shouldn't be going for the default natural state anyways we should be striving to be better than that.

What level of prejudicial bigotry and subjugation is "better" than treating everyone equally, again?

I know you're not making that argument, but the idea that the bigotry-free baseline is somehow "worse" by virtue of being the baseline is not really an argument.

[omeomorfismo]

thats something i wont ever understand. whats the point of discussing with an anti abortionist (or the contrary)
thats fundamentally a moral axiom and there isnt anything that could change it.
just fight them, thats all...

[Fugus]

thats something i wont ever understand. whats the point of discussing with an anti abortionist (or the contrary)
thats fundamentally a moral axiom and there isnt anything that could change it.
just fight them, thats all...

Exactly, the family member I talk about largely acts like a prideful bully but keeps most of prejudices to himself when dealing with people but his actual views are monstrous and those are the people he supported.

He considers homosexuality to be a form of mental disorder, he had zero issues with kids being kidnapped at the border and adults being tortured as he considered that punishment for trying to come here and didn’t differentiate between crossing the border illegally or actually doing it legally.

His entire way he remembers his life is a lie and would be homeless or worse if he had to live how he described his life.

There is no logically debating with that.

Still trying to figure out how he voices and supports those views while he eldest daughter is pregnant with a dreamer as the father who is about to be deported with her planning and moving there with him after the baby is born and him acting fine about it.

Edit: but trying to convince someone who is near universally on the moral wrong side of virtual every issue to protect his pride is a fools errand.

[qwerty123456]

This isn't that complicated a concept.

Do you believe women are naturally, inherently inferior to men? Yes or no.

If you answer "no", you agree with me. And if you answer "yes", well, we're gonna have a talk about the misogyny.

Once you start adding in societal dynamics and structures, as you're doing, you're creating prejudices and such that don't reflect that baseline any more, and I'm not interested in how unequal early societies may have been, because that's not my point.



What level of prejudicial bigotry and subjugation is "better" than treating everyone equally, again?

I know you're not making that argument, but the idea that the bigotry-free baseline is somehow "worse" by virtue of being the baseline is not really an argument.

You didn't really read or understand my argument.

You are transcribing ethical concerns to a natural state of being which isn't accurate. Your point was that women and men deserve the same respect and rights was a natural fact when all of human history has shown that this isn't our natural state. Women and men most certainly deserve the same respect and rights but clearly nature doesn't give a shit which is why rape is a viable strategy for reproduction in some species. Thankfully most humans have realized that its fucked up and wrong and we shouldn't do it and so now have laws against it.

I'm not saying a bigotry-free baseline is somehow worse I'm saying that a bigotry-free baseline doesn't exist and we shouldn't try and go back to a natural state because the natural state does have bigotry and bias we need to put ourselves above the natural baseline.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Just visiting for my monthly infraction to say that this ruling is amazing but sadly doesn't go far enough. The power will be returned to the states so don't worry if you live in a Blue state, you can still scramble, boil and snip babies in the womb. For everyone else, you will just have to redouble your efforts into sexualising children instead with your degeneracy.

Peace.

Dude here goes for the lying fear mongering. Since none of that child sexualization nor fetus boiling happens.

Meanwhile conservatives want to force women to birth babies and then when that woman asks for help they say "Fuck you". When conservatives are told how many children in this country go hungry, they just shrug and say "PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS YOU LAZY BUM". Why? Because they don't care about children nor life. Look at the above post. It's clearly just about controlling women's reproductive systems. It has nothing to do with the "sanctity of life", "State's rights", or any other bullshit they spew. They don't give a fuck about any of those things.