SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

If the problem is fear, the answer is knowledge. Each side has to be willing to try to understand the concerns of the other..

I believe we must reinvigorate the fire of this idealism in our society, because nothing suffocates the original promise of America more than unbounded cynicism and division.

Find common ground and build upon it.

When one side wants to harm and victimize and subjugate innocent people, there is no "common ground" with them. You can't find "common ground" with Nazis and other fascists. The only way to do so the fascists would ever find acceptable is becoming fascists yourself, and supporting their abuses, and even then more often than not it's just a delay tactic until you're on their list for abuse.

Nazis aren't interested in "understanding". They're interested in hurting you. That's it. There's no debate or discussion to be had. They have to be opposed by whatever means are necessary, up to and including violence, because the alternative is that they will do even worse to you and others, forever, because that's their entire ideological outlook.

Appeasement doesn't fuckin' work, and it takes a sympathizer to argue that it ever could.

I don't have to find "common ground" with pedophiles.
I don't have to find "common ground" with rapists.
I don't have to find "common ground" with wife beaters.
And I definitely don't have to find "common ground" with Nazis and other abusive fascists.

And I take significant offense at the suggestion that I should.

[tehdang]

If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy "seconds up to actual birth," that's called "induction." The baby survives that. Call me radical, but I support inducing labor.

No. The woman can choose to abort the baby. She is absolutely in control in schemes that have no lawful restriction on abortion up to delivery.

Most of what you've said seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what pro-choice politicians are talking about.

I said it before, and I won't repeat it too many times after, but people that cannot point to any restrictions at any stage of the pregnancy do permit abortions through all 40 weeks.

Well most people don't read MMO-C? And this isn't a site just used by Americans? And I mean...congratulations on realizing that people don't usually bother to examine the philosophical groundings of their arguments or that of their opponents'.

Europeans are expected to have different opinions. Their restrictions are more restrictive than the law in question in Dobbs, as with the majority of states in America.

Well mass shootings have a much larger effect and on more people per event than abortions late in pregnancy.

Claiming they are rare, thus deserve to be neglected, is in question here.

Sorry, but "final minutes" such a mind-bogglingly ignorant thing to say.

It's mind-bogglingly ignorant to support people who make claim to no restrictions, to support arguments that speak only of permanent mother bodily autonomy, and then neglect any possible change in the final minutes. If you don't speak to a limiting principle, and haven't pointed to any up to this point, then you probably aren't secretly hiding one until later in the debate.

If only the people they were meant to compromise with had any clue what they were legislating, maybe they would? I mean, I don't agree with compromising a human right, but this is America...

Twice now you've dodged any responsibility for what pro-choice legislators should do. Are you really in favor of letting pro-life legislators do something, and only argue that what you do is justified based on the other side?

Like I already said about restrictions: they're not needed, and in fact would do more harm than good.
1) The medical community is already going to default to "save a viable fetus, if it can be done safely."

Legally, this isn't mandated. Therefore, the medical community is bound by the patient's desires, and their own conscience (where they may allow another doctor to perform the abortion

2) The exceptions like "life of the mother" are written by legislators and enforced by prosecutors that know shit about medicine and are usually politically motivated. The situations they are meant to legislate are complicated; there's no test to determine whether or not the life of the mother is endangered or not, or how in danger she is. If she had a 90% chance of dying, does it qualify as an exception? A 70% chance? A 50% chance? A 25% chance? Where is the line between "exceptional situation" and "prosecutable offense?"

You're really going to tell me that exceptions based on "life of the mother" can be so easily dismissed? This is the case of medical emergencies with a greater than 50% chance the mother will not survive, to speak nothing of the infant in question. It isn't a balancing test where a statistician gets together with the doctor and decides if its 84.7% +/- 0.3%.

3) Because of the complexity of said situations, medical providers are better qualified than legislators to make these decisions.
4) Because of- again- the complexity of the situations, knowing that they could be investigated/prosecuted if some government official decides the mother's life "wasn't in enough danger" is sufficient to scare medical providers into preferring inaction when they would otherwise prefer to act. The threat of potential legal action against providers due to vague and politically motivated restrictions will mean more women dying.

You're shrugging and letting doctors bear the philosophical burden. No dice. Speak on your own part, and don't make doctors into your moral arbiters that you couldn't possibly comment upon. I'd say the same if you were in favor of eugenics, but wanted to yield to doctors on their choices regarding IQ and intellectual capacity.

This is just you either misunderstanding the pro-choice position and/or ascribing malice where there is none. When pro-choice politicians say they support unrestricted abortions all the way through, they do so with the understanding that the medical community is more equipped than legislators to make these decisions, and that they are going to default to preserving life wherever possible.

If you want to accuse Democrats of being terrible communicators, have at it. I'll join you. But at least make an attempt to understand what "unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks" actually means instead of buying into the malicious assumptions pro-lifers have been projecting at us for decades.

I don't overemphasize malice. It's more of a case of moral cowardice overlapping with neglect. You don't wish to deal with the moral consequences of aborting life capable of living outside the womb, so you outsource it to doctors when you're able. You want to assume some default that speaks most favorably on your position, without any evidence or history to support your assumption. You're really ticked that your position demands unrestricted abortion through 40 weeks, and all you have to defend yourself is that somebody else is empowered to perform unrestricted abortions through 40 weeks. I don't think you have a fully-formed view on this issue. Maybe I should be asking you which doctor you'd appoint to instead tell me when its permissible to perform abortions prior to the final days of 40 weeks, since you really seem to be surrendering all decisions to another.

[Endus]

I said it before, and I won't repeat it too many times after, but people that cannot point to any restrictions at any stage of the pregnancy do permit abortions through all 40 weeks.

Why should there be any restrictions? Why not just abide by medical ethics and patient consent?

Why make up baseless rules to push religious dogma onto everyone who doesn't believe in it?

Legally, this isn't mandated. Therefore, the medical community is bound by the patient's desires, and their own conscience (where they may allow another doctor to perform the abortion

Which is precisely how it should be. The same way it would be with, say, blood transfusions, which some religious groups have dogmatic issues with.

If you, as a doctor, refuse to treat a patient because of your religious views, though, your licence to practice needs to be revoked because you're not doing your job and it comes at the expense of patient care. It's unethical conduct.

You're shrugging and letting doctors bear the philosophical burden. No dice. Speak on your own part, and don't make doctors into your moral arbiters that you couldn't possibly comment upon. I'd say the same if you were in favor of eugenics, but wanted to yield to doctors on their choices regarding IQ and intellectual capacity.

It isn't about any "philosophical burden"; doctors have the technical and diagnostic expertise that's relevant. Philosophy doesn't even enter into the situation, other than normal medical ethical practice, which again, doctors are the most familiar with of anyone.

I don't overemphasize malice. It's more of a case of moral cowardice overlapping with neglect. You don't wish to deal with the moral consequences of aborting life capable of living outside the womb, so you outsource it to doctors when you're able.

Here you go;

There are no "moral consequences" to aborting a fetus.

None.

That's religious dogma you are inventing, and you've got no business trying to shove it into my, or anyone else's, life. Keep your religion to yourself, and use it to guide your choices. Once you start trying to control others choices on that ground, you're being a religious fascist and you deserve all the condemnation in the world. Because here's the thing; forcing your religious views on others is an immoral act.

[Smitzelplix]

I'd rather not see the political party which holds my favor adopt behavior that I condemn on the opposition.

I just read your past posts. You don't favor the Democrats at all and came off as pro Trump when he was in office. Here's one of your more recent posts about Biden. @Fugus was right, your posts in this thread have been disingenuous.

We'll soon forget everything about it, just like Biden.

[Rasulis]

It might still be. I've seen a number of suggestions--and I don't want to discount them entirely--that Republicans are concerned that the fury over overturning Roe will backfire on them. Reportedly, several prominent Republicans were saying they would have preferred this decision after the midterms, rather than before, so they could make the election about the economy instead of having to focus on abortion.

If the pro-choice supporters want to restore abortion right, then they need to emulate their pro-life counterparts. NPR has been interviewing some of the movement leaders. The impression that I had was that they didn't always like the people that they voted for. In many ways, they were pretty similar with the typical Democrats. They wanted better mother/infant support, paid family leave, etc. However, they were laser-focused on the issue of abortion to the exclusion of all others. If they had to vote for somebody that they detest, as long as the person advanced the cause, so be it. Pro-choice supporters may be the minority, but this substantial minority consistently showed up for every election and voted in unison. If the pro-choice supporters want to win, they have to do the same.

[Fugus]

Can already expect the supporters make the half assed excuses about how they shouldn’t have sex if they didn’t want the kid neglecting that most sex doesn’t happen with the desire of children and that it’s the intervention of these zealots into their sex lives that creates the children that otherwise would have never hit a point where it could logically be considered a person.

Kinda like if there was a snoop dog concert and I went and spread the entire thing with an odorless accelerant and then when it all burn down and kills everyone I blamed them for smoking causing it while neglecting the fact that everyone knew they were going to smoke and prepared for that and it was only my intervention that caused the problems that got people killed and caused suffering and turned otherwise harmless fun into something life alteringly or endingly bad.

[david0925]

I just read your past posts. You don't favor the Democrats at all and came off as pro Trump when he was in office. Here's one of your more recent posts about Biden. @Fugus was right, your posts in this thread have been disingenuous.

Of course he is. Even people that wanted to "play nice" are enraged after all the bullshit conservatives pull since 2016. Grifters pretending to play impartial or even democratic leaning are despicable

[Xyonai]

Can already expect the supporters make the half assed excuses about how they shouldn’t have sex if they didn’t want the kid neglecting that most sex doesn’t happen with the desire of children and that it’s the intervention of these zealots into their sex lives that creates the children that otherwise would have never hit a point where it could logically be considered a person.

Kinda like if there was a snoop dog concert and I went and spread the entire thing with an odorless accelerant and then when it all burn down and kills everyone I blamed them for smoking causing it while neglecting the fact that everyone knew they were going to smoke and prepared for that and it was only my intervention that caused the problems that got people killed and caused suffering and turned otherwise harmless fun into something life alteringly or endingly bad.

The people who smugly go "Well if you don't want Kids then don't have sex you -whore-" really just tell on themselves about what their motives for opposing Abortion are.

[Fugus]

The people who smugly go "Well if you don't want Kids then don't have sex you -whore-" really just tell on themselves about what their motives for opposing Abortion are.

As I have said before, if it wasn’t for double standards they wouldn’t have any.

[cubby]

I thought republicans getting the house back this fall was a coin flip. I don't anymore.

Agreed. People are saying this will galvanize the Democrats, but I disagree. I think overturning Roe will bring the GQP out in droves, and they will take the House and the Senate.

After that - it's Impeachment votes every two weeks, and national abortion laws sent up for Biden to veto. Harris can't beat the racist misogynism, so Trump/DeSantis will win in 2024. And then we can start printing Gilead flags.

[Gestopft]

Agreed. People are saying this will galvanize the Democrats, but I disagree. I think overturning Roe will bring the GQP out in droves, and they will take the House and the Senate.

After that - it's Impeachment votes every two weeks, and national abortion laws sent up for Biden to veto. Harris can't beat the racist misogynism, so Trump/DeSantis will win in 2024. And then we can start printing Gilead flags.

Pretty much my only hope is that there are enough fragments of Democracy left for Millennials/GenZ to take the wheel when enough Boomers are gone.

[Smitzelplix]

Agreed. People are saying this will galvanize the Democrats, but I disagree. I think overturning Roe will bring the GQP out in droves, and they will take the House and the Senate.

After that - it's Impeachment votes every two weeks, and national abortion laws sent up for Biden to veto. Harris can't beat the racist misogynism, so Trump/DeSantis will win in 2024. And then we can start printing Gilead flags.

Are you sure @Blur4stuff was being pessimistic? Perhaps their post was meant to say that this is going to make the Republicans not be able to get the House back.

Edit: I found one of their previous posts, you took their post the wrong way.

I'm not sure what else that could have happened to more motivate people to vote dem this November. This one ruling will likely make the difference in several house seats being won and maybe a few in the senate.

If inflation cools off and gas prices go down over the next few months this could be a devastating election for republicans when it previously seemed like the opposite.

[Gestopft]

I said it before, and I won't repeat it too many times after, but people that cannot point to any restrictions at any stage of the pregnancy do permit abortions through all 40 weeks.

Because we're focused on the reality of post-viability abortions, not concocted fantasies.

It's mind-bogglingly ignorant to support people who make claim to no restrictions, to support arguments that speak only of permanent mother bodily autonomy, and then neglect any possible change in the final minutes. If you don't speak to a limiting principle, and haven't pointed to any up to this point, then you probably aren't secretly hiding one until later in the debate.

OMG PLEASE find me an example- any example- of a viable fetus being intentionally terminated in "the final minutes." Or even the day before the due date. This even more ridiculous than the GOP freakout about "voter fraud"

Twice now you've dodged any responsibility for what pro-choice legislators should do. Are you really in favor of letting pro-life legislators do something, and only argue that what you do is justified based on the other side?

I haven't dodged anything; I've been explaining why they don't support restrictions, not what they should do (and also speculating that pro-choice legislators may have a difficult time compromising with ignorance). As to what they should do? Make some compromises if they can. I might not like the resulting policy, but I will accept "less bad" if I can't get "good."

Legally, this isn't mandated. Therefore, the medical community is bound by the patient's desires, and their own conscience (where they may allow another doctor to perform the abortion

Silly me, I forgot that abortion providers are baby butchering murderers that gleefully ignore basic medical ethics. How could I have missed that one? I'm SOOOO embarrassed!

You're really going to tell me that exceptions based on "life of the mother" can be so easily dismissed? This is the case of medical emergencies with a greater than 50% chance the mother will not survive, to speak nothing of the infant in question. It isn't a balancing test where a statistician gets together with the doctor and decides if its 84.7% +/- 0.3%.

Since "life of the mother" has complexities that make it hard to precisely define or measure, it also makes it hard to legislate. Particularly, again, since most legislators aren't highly trained OBGYNs.

You're shrugging and letting doctors bear the philosophical burden. No dice. Speak on your own part, and don't make doctors into your moral arbiters that you couldn't possibly comment upon.

Like I've said. I disagree with intentionally terminating a viable fetus. But I also recognize the downsides of trying to legislate this from a place of medical ignorance. I am fine with doctors making these ethical decisions based on their expertise (which I lack), even if it means the law theoretically allowing something I disagree with. But if you can write a law that both supports viable fetuses and the ability of doctors to make medical decisions without being so vague as to be meaningless, I'm all ears.

You don't wish to deal with the moral consequences of aborting life capable of living outside the womb, so you outsource it to doctors when you're able.

Here, let's wrestle with the moral consequences of "restrictions, with exceptions:"
Positive- an abortion late in pregnancy (very rare) that is unnecessary (even rarer) performed on a woman that could afford something that expensive out-of-pocket (also rare) by a provider willing to abandon medical ethics and not try to save a viable fetus (again, rare) could, theoretically, be stopped (though if she's rich enough, she'll probably find a way anyway).
Negative- Women will die due to inaction by medical personnel that fear legal consequences from ideologically motivated prosecutors who know jack shit about medicine.

Yeah. I'm fine with those. I think intentionally terminating an otherwise viable fetus is generally wrong. Pretty sure I've been very clear about that. I also think that trying to place restrictions on that incredibly rare situation would harm far more women than potential babies it could save.

Also, wake me up when the GOP accepts the "moral consequences" of their abortion bans and actually invest in the mothers and the children that they are forcing onto them. The thing that has actually bothered me more than pro-life views is utter hypocrisy that the "pro-life" party is the one that is incessantly bitching about "welfare moms," trying to cut support programs, refusing to support sex ed. or birth control, etc. Conservatives/Republicans have made it abundantly clear with their policies that they cease caring about the well being of the baby once it's born, and they don't support providing women the tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Oh and hey, what's your view on gun control? We could head over to that thread and have a GREAT conversation about "dealing with the moral consequences" of policies. A fair bit to be said on that one, methinks...

You want to assume some default that speaks most favorably on your position, without any evidence or history to support your assumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics

If you think "we support killing babies" is, instead, a default position, then you're suffering from conservative-media induced brain rot, and should probably have that checked out.

You're really ticked that your position demands unrestricted abortion through 40 weeks, and all you have to defend yourself is that somebody else is empowered to perform unrestricted abortions through 40 weeks.

Dunno how I'm ticked about it. Every single policy position one can promote involves some level of harm. This is why I tend to base my positions pragmatically, rather than on moral purity or on "what ifs."

Yeah. I don't think it's good to terminate a viable fetus. I also don't think it's good to force women to carry a pregnancy to term that they don't want. I don't think it benefits the children, the parents, or society when children are forced on the parents. I don't think it's good for women when doctors have to worry about being prosecuted over their medical decisions.

If the incredibly rare "unnecessary post-viability termination that the doctor is willing to do and the patient can actually afford" is the price to pay for "women's bodily autonomy, less child poverty, less burden on the foster care system, and the freedom for medical professionals to act on their expertise late in pregnancy," then I am fine paying that price.

[Jtbrig7390]

This summed up my thoughts quite well.



If you don't like abortion fine that's you, don't force your believes and religion on others period. Our system is completely broke when over 70% of the country supports something like Pro-Choice and yet get ignored because some assholes in power that we didn't vote for decided it was not legal anymore.

Fuck the SCOTUS and fuck anyone who supports them.

[tikcol]

I just read your past posts. You don't favor the Democrats at all and came off as pro Trump when he was in office. Here's one of your more recent posts about Biden. @Fugus was right, your posts in this thread have been disingenuous.

I believe it's important to disregard this notion that a political party should be treated the same way as a football team.

This blind alliegence brings about tribalism which is incredibly rewarding when you're talking about football but it's a disservice to democracy when it comes to politics.

[Mekh]

I believe it's important to disregard this notion that a political party should be treated the same way as a football team.

This blind alliegence brings about tribalism which is incredibly rewarding when you're talking about football but it's a disservice to democracy when it comes to politics.

See, you got it all wrong. Sports should be about coming together and having a good time. Politics should be about pushing the fascists to the fringe and then off of it.

Because the Mets winning a game isn't gonna get anyone killed.

[Poopymonster]

There is not common ground on some of these issues.
I am not going to half way agree with someone on whether or not gays can get married. It is a yes they can or no they can't.
And if your answer is they can't because your religion says no, you can leave for a more religious country.

They're all lovey dovey come together bullshit because he's still in the afterglow of the decision.

[Darththeo]

The people who smugly go "Well if you don't want Kids then don't have sex you -whore-" really just tell on themselves about what their motives for opposing Abortion are.

It is all about control.

The reason planned parenthood had such weird accounting of services was because these people didn't want tax dollars to pay for abortions so rather than just counting all services for abortion as one procedure, they pre and post abortion services had to be listed separately for billing. And these people then whined because "Planned Parenthood is not counting procedures correctly!"

I was like, they have to count it that way because you didn't want your tax dollars to pay for abortions. You cannot please these people who want to control women. It is bad enough they boil a woman down to just her uterus.

- - - Updated - - -

They're all lovey dovey come together bullshit because he's still in the afterglow of the decision.

Pretty much. People are celebrating the religious wins that the SCOTUS gave. In this decision and a coach who lead prayer decision.

I do not wish to live in a theocracy. Religion has no place in government.

[Smitzelplix]

I believe it's important to disregard this notion that a political party should be treated the same way as a football team.

This blind alliegence brings about tribalism which is incredibly rewarding when you're talking about football but it's a disservice to democracy when it comes to politics.

Just saying your past posts betray what you're saying now. I don't know if all of what you've been doing in this thread is some kind of trolling, or maybe you're afraid that this ruling could lead to a lot of violence targeted against Republicans. Whatever the case I and several others don't think you're being genuine.

[Kathandira]

Jtbrig

....now that is a name I have not heard in a long time.