SCOTUS draft to remove Roe V Wade leaked

[jonnysensible]

For those who aren't yet aware, Donald Trump Jr. has taken to instagram to imply that Roe v Wade was overturned because Obama made fun of Trump at the 2011 correspondence dinner: https://www.instagram.com/p/CfMVK3mO...f-07751cbb0b61


Everyone who voted in 2020 MUST show up and vote in 2022 and 2024 and make these fucking idiots irrelevant.

they wont be irrelevant if they people you vote for dont do anything

[Lenonis]

So what happens to places where abortions are done in states that ban it? Do the police go and shut it down or what?

Each law laid out the penalties for abortion providers. It differs state to state

[Gestopft]

So what happens to places where abortions are done in states that ban it? Do the police go and shut it down or what?

Presumably, but probably court injunctions first, loss of business/medical licenses, and whatever prescribed criminal charges for the providers involved. A whole, shitshow, I'm sure.

[Moadar]

Presumably, but probably court injunctions first, loss of business/medical licenses, and whatever prescribed criminal charges for the providers involved. A whole, shitshow, I'm sure.

This will definitely be a shit show. I want to say this will be where people learn the danger of going too far with something but no one ever really learns.

[Mihalik]

So what happens to places where abortions are done in states that ban it? Do the police go and shut it down or what?

Most bans carry significant jail sentences both on those providing it and the people having it. So essentially yes.

[Draco-Onis]

Most bans carry significant jail sentences both on those providing it and the people having it. So essentially yes.

Only a matter of time before a pregnant woman gets carried to jail or worse in those states.

[Gestopft]

This will definitely be a shit show. I want to say this will be where people learn the danger of going too far with something but no one ever really learns.

Reminds me of the old quote: “You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility.”

[Winter Blossom]

Yes, because people in the military are subject to the military and not the state they reside in, unless they are in the Guard. That's all this means.

It’s not just people in the military, it’s anyone that has Tricare (civilians, too). It means the state can’t dictate what happens on federal property, in a federal hospital building.

[Shadowferal]

Only a matter of time before a pregnant woman gets carried to jail or worse in those states.

And that is what needs to be seen. Make that sort of thing a public display. Force her to have a child against her will.

[Lenonis]

Most bans carry significant jail sentences both on those providing it and the people having it. So essentially yes.

I thought for the most part they weren't going after women. Just the providers. No?

[tehdang]

Actually it's really easy to keep up the Bodily Autonomy defense if someone wants to use this retort.

As I said to that Walsh-lookin'-dude earlier: I, with my hypothetical liver issues, cannot compel you, a hypothetical liver haver, to give me a chunk of your liver even if it means I'll die. You cannot force someone to give someone else blood, organs, or other tissues. You cannot force someone to fuck you, or to be your slave.

And in that same vein a woman shouldn't be compelled to incubate a life she has no intention on incubating.

The case of bodily autonomy here suffers after viability. The baby can be delivered alive, no more "forced liver donor" necessary, so proceeding to kill anyways just shows disrespect for life. At the even worst end of defending an extremist bodily autonomy argument, the moment just before birth, usually we don't give alternative of "continue to donate your liver, or just wait 30 minutes and nothing more is required."

Damn ya'll really love feelings over facts don't ya?

I'm not going to force you to contend with the logic of treating actual arguments, instead of just the pro-choice spin on arguments. Remember that the more pro-choice activists dismiss the heart of the conflict, the less they're able to persuade and legislate their preferred abortion rules into law.

Yeah the pro-lifers really come over as the rational ones.

Compared to the post I responded to, and ones on the same page, absolutely that's how they come across. They're grappling with the harder arguments on the legislative stage, and the sampling shown here of their opponents is dedicated to peremptory dismissal.

People are absolutely free to mourn miscarriages, to think a fetus is the same as a human being, to cordially detest abortion for any and all reason they might have, as much as they might like.

What's less understandable is why those holding these opinions should be able to force them unto others.

The classic "People are free to detest slavery, so just don't buy slaves ... please don't force your views of slavery on others." That's probably the only example of moral wrong that will break through here.

Back to the actual post context: A user was trying to point out a point of hypocrisy--asserting that a previous post showed a different user didn't truly believe abortion is killing children. The response was to remind him that people can and do mourn miscarriages. Logically, if nobody made an assertion that opposite arguers didn't actually believe what they said, then no argument would be necessary to retort to it. However, some people are not satisfied in saying they're right, but must go further to demand people who disagree even partially (pro-abortion, but admits that his side doesn't grapple enough with the reality of "Its a shitty situation for everyone") are actually arguing in bad faith. I have no problem with you saying "People are absolutely free to mourn miscarriages," because you're not personally accusing anyone of secretly admitting abortion doesn't end the life of an unborn baby.

[Edge-]

The response was to remind him that people can and do mourn miscarriages

I mourn my cup of spilled coffee in the morning. That doesn't mean it's a baby.

[Gestopft]

The case of bodily autonomy here suffers after viability. The baby can be delivered alive, no more "forced liver donor" necessary, so proceeding to kill anyways just shows disrespect for life.

1) We're talking about less than 1% of abortions here, and that far in, usually the pregnant woman doesn't want an abortion, but it's an emergency situation.
2) Viability is the de facto standard for pro-choice. I have never heard anyone advocate for 'kill anyway' if the child can be safely delivered.

[Endus]

The case of bodily autonomy here suffers after viability. The baby can be delivered alive, no more "forced liver donor" necessary, so proceeding to kill anyways just shows disrespect for life.

You have literally no clue what you're talking about.

If you're having a late-term abortion for some reason, the process generally is to induce live birth. It's the easiest and safest way to get the fetus out. If the fetus is viable, it'll be born, and things proceed from there. "Abortion" refers to the ending of a pregnancy before natural term, it does not specifically refer to killing the fetus.

Yes, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the fetus can't survive, because it's either non-viable due to how early in the process it is (99%+ of the time), or it's because there's massive medical complications that are forcing this decision and those complications have already damaged the fetus beyond salvation.

You're not making an argument. You're literally just spewing willful ignorance and disinformation. You can take your pick whether you're just completely uninformed and totally misled by propagandists, or a propagandist yourself. I don't see that the distinction matters.

I'm not going to force you to contend with the logic of treating actual arguments, instead of just the pro-choice spin on arguments. Remember that the more pro-choice activists dismiss the heart of the conflict, the less they're able to persuade and legislate their preferred abortion rules into law.

You didn't make an actual argument. You just lied about how abortions work, straight-up, and hoped no one would call you out on it.

The classic "People are free to detest slavery, so just don't buy slaves ... please don't force your views of slavery on others." That's probably the only example of moral wrong that will break through here.

Again, fetus is not a person. Stop inserting religious dogma and trying to force people to accept it.

Back to the actual post context: A user was trying to point out a point of hypocrisy--asserting that a previous post showed a different user didn't truly believe abortion is killing children. The response was to remind him that people can and do mourn miscarriages.

A fetus is definitively, legally, not a "child". If you're struggling with basic definitions, you're never gonna convince anyone of anything.

Also, if you want to try and claim that you believe personhood starts earlier, then you are, again, making a religious argument, and those can be summarily discarded as irrelevant, since they cannot be construed to apply to anyone who does not share your belief.

And no; I don't care if you're a non-sectarian spiritual type rather than part of a recognized faith group; the idea that the fetus is a "child" from birth is not one that has any basis in anything but empty faith. It does not derive from the law, and it does not derive from science. It's just an idea you like, for whatever reason, but you can't actually prove it, because it's based on faith.

If you could, we wouldn't have people like myself dismissing it so readily, like this.

That doesn't mean individuals can't mourn a miscarriage, but they're mourning the loss of what might have been. Having been through it my own fucking self, thank you very much; this isn't a hypothetical for me, I don't have to guess what people might have mourned, I can tell you what I actually mourned. Getting real fuckin' tired of people trying to shame me for not understanding experiences I have personally been through. You're wrong and can't make your case, and you're appealing to emotion, and getting the emotion wrong to boot.

Logically, if nobody made an assertion that opposite arguers didn't actually believe what they said, then no argument would be necessary to retort to it. However, some people are not satisfied in saying they're right, but must go further to demand people who disagree even partially (pro-abortion, but admits that his side doesn't grapple enough with the reality of "Its a shitty situation for everyone") are actually arguing in bad faith. I have no problem with you saying "People are absolutely free to mourn miscarriages," because you're not personally accusing anyone of secretly admitting abortion doesn't end the life of an unborn baby.

You're trying to make an emotional appeal through the use of the colloquial-but-wrong "unborn baby". A fetus isn't a baby. Particularly not before it reaches viability at the start of the third trimester or thereabouts. An abortion pill that results in the fetus detaching from the uterine wall does not, itself, "end the life of the fetus". It merely removes it. It's not viable, so it immediately dies, but that's the case so casually so many times that it's shocking that it's even a consideration. Fertilized eggs fail to implant all the time. Or a pregnancy fails so early the pregnant person never even realizes they were pregnant; they just have a slightly heavier-than-usual period that month. You can't stop abortions; every miscarriage is an abortion, at whatever stage they occur.

And regardless, trying to make it about the life of the fetus is an irrelevant distraction. What you're saying when you focus on that is that you do not consider the pregnant person's bodily autonomy to be relevant. That means you are dehumanizing them, treating them as a brood mare for society, a tool to be used, and not actually a person at all. Pro-life positions require this, and they conceal it by trying to talk about the fetus instead, when abortion rights are entirely about the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.

You could take a live, already-born infant, cut a woman open, and stick it inside her uterus and hook it up to an artificial placenta, and while we can objectively state clearly that infant is a "baby", that it definitively is a human being and a person, and that pregnant person would still have the right to say "get it the fuck out of me, I don't want it".

Anything less is treating women as subhuman livestock. Fundamentally.

[Lenonis]

I mourn my cup of spilled coffee in the morning. That doesn't mean it's a baby.

Not to mention whether or not you mourn something is irrelevant. The conversation went like this:

"Abortion is murder"
"Really?"
"Yup - murder is murder. Abortion kills children"
"So you advocate criminalizing miscarriage?"
"HOw DarE YOu. I hAVe fRIenDs wHO moUrN tHEir MisCArriaGE"

Note at no point was there an actual response to the assertion that fetal death is killing a child. That would include miscarriage. Unless of course you are a raging hypocrite.

[RadasNoir]

And that is what needs to be seen. Make that sort of thing a public display. Force her to have a child against her will.

It won't matter. We have videos of police officers murdering people in the street and children gunning down other children during a school shooting. Neither sort of video has prompted any sort of worthwhile change.

The people against abortion will either just cry "FAKE NEWS" or even cheer upon seeing anything happen to one of those "dirty, poor" pregnant mothers, and the people for abortion won't need to see that to know how fucked up it all is.

[Darththeo]

Not to mention whether or not you mourn something is irrelevant. The conversation went like this:

"Abortion is murder"
"Really?"
"Yup - murder is murder. Abortion kills children"
"So you advocate criminalizing miscarriage?"
"HOw DarE YOu. I hAVe fRIenDs wHO moUrN tHEir MisCArriaGE"

Note at no point was there an actual response to the assertion that fetal death is killing a child. That would include miscarriage. Unless of course you are a raging hypocrite.

Ignoring there are murderers who mourned their victims too.
And people guilty of manslaughter who mourned their victims.

[Lenonis]

Ignoring there are murderers who mourned their victims too.
And people guilty of manslaughter who mourned their victims.

The whole abortion is murder is just empty emotion based rhetoric. Very few actually believe that because if you did you would think miscarriages should be manslaughter.

And almost no one thinks that. Because almost no one truly believes fetuses should be treated as children.

[Draco-Onis]

And that is what needs to be seen. Make that sort of thing a public display. Force her to have a child against her will.

That's the thing they are deathly afraid of not because they care but due to the bad PR but they keep writing more and more extreme laws prosecutors will have no choice but to do this.

[Axelthefox]