SCOTUS draft to remove Roe V Wade leaked

[PACOX]

Um... Evangelicals have been pretending that every other sect "aren't real Christians" as a political tool for decades. This isn't something new. Nor is it unique to Biden. And it's not going to change people's minds on voting for Biden, as those who would vote for him already belong to denominations that aren't as up their own ass about this sort of thing to begin with. And those who wouldn't already believed that Dems are evil baby-murdering Satanists...

Im saying its a reversal of their previous stance towards others. Suddenly they are in lock step with Catholics and an extreme Catholic rhetoric. Hard anti-contraceptives arent generally attributed to the Religious Right (mostly evangelicals), but something you hear amongst conservative Catholics.

[Poopymonster]

Im saying its a reversal of their previous stance towards others. Suddenly they are in lock step with Catholics and an extreme Catholic rhetoric. Hard anti-contraceptives arent generally attributed to the Religious Right (mostly evangelicals), but something you hear amongst conservative Catholics.

Fundigelicals are flexible like that when it's in their interest.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Why should states have the rights to determine what people do with their body? The whole concept about "state's rights" is that conservatives live by the idea that rights should be determined by as few people as possible, that other people (especially higher powers like government) shouldn't have a right to determine what their rights are, but if they must, those governmental institutions should be as small and local as possible.

What's smaller than the individual figuring out for themselves if they want an abortion or not?

And why do conservatives HATE women?

Back before Roe vs Wade newspapers would often cover stories about how women often die from seeking abortions in back alleys. If conservatives truly cared about the sanctity of life, they'd keep Roe vs Wade, because it's just a FACT that women seek abortions if they don't want to carry a baby to term. And laws will generally not stop them.

What generally does stop people from seeking abortions is if they have people around them who are encouraging them, supporting them, assisting them, and even more so if there are governmental systems set up to care for the child. Countries that allow abortion but have strong welfare for mothers have the lowest abortion rates and the lowest child death rates.

So nobody in here, @tehdang or anyone else, who wants abortion to be illegal, can claim to care about the "sanctity of life" because more people and fetuses and babies die under conditions where abortion is illegal. So willfully knowing this, if you want to make abortion illegal, you are not suddenly "pro life". You hate life.

[Edge-]

Back before Roe vs Wade newspapers would often cover stories about how women often die from seeking abortions in back alleys. If conservatives truly cared about the sanctity of life, they'd keep Roe vs Wade, because it's just a FACT that women seek abortions if they don't want to carry a baby to term. And laws will generally not stop them.

The double irony being that conservative areas are more likely to promote abstinence-only sex education, which has repeatedly shown to be grossly ineffective for insatiably horny teenagers. And that actually teaching kids about sex, safe sex, and risks associated with sexual activity, and ensuring that they have access to things like condoms, reduces unplanned/teen pregnancies and the potential for a girl/young woman to need to even consider abortion.

But as always, Republicans don't seem actually interested in solving the core problem. The cruelty is indeed the point.

[s_bushido]

But as always, Republicans don't seem actually interested in solving the core problem.

They are interested in that when they believe that the core problem is that women are having too much sex...

[Rasulis]

Tesla now offers to reimburse its employees for travel expenses when they seek reproductive care in other states, including abortion. I expect the same with SpaceX and Boring Company. At least if they want to keep those Caltech and Colorado School of Mines grads working.

Add Goldman and JP Morgan.

Quick list in addition to the big names like Apple, Amazon, etc.

Capgemini Invent
Momentive
Benefit Cosmetics
OJO Labs
Zendesk
La Colombe Coffee Roasters
Adya Partners
Syzygy Plasmonics Inc
M.M.LaFleur
Bumble
Playful Studios/BetRed Stories
Brenda Thompson Communications
Visceral
Luminary
Internet Creations
Tenth & Spruce
Magnet Media, Inc.
Stitch Fix
Atlassian
Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics
The Body Shop
Box, Inc.
Asana
BSR
VICE Media Group
HarbourView Equity Partners
Amalgamated Bank
mara hoffman
Michael Stars
The Cru
Farmgirl Flowers
Medicines360
Everlane
Houndstooth Coffee
Established
Rich Talent Group
Madewell
Patagonia
Glossier
Seventh Generation
Mercury Fund
Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc.
WP Engine
Clare V.
Adasina Social Capital
Trillium Asset Management LLC
Spot Insurance Inc.
People at the Center
Clean Yield Asset Management
Earth Equity Advisors, LLC
Gather Voices
The Pill Club
IFundWomen
The Alchemist
Elektra Health
A Sense of Home
Preacher LLC

- - - Updated - - -

Walmart board of directors will be voting on this issue next week. We'll see how it goes. 70% of Walmart stores are in red states.

[Endus]

Tesla now offers to reimburse its employees for travel expenses when they seek reproductive care in other states, including abortion. I expect the same with SpaceX and Boring Company. At least if they want to keep those Caltech and Colorado School of Mines grads working.

Add Goldman and JP Morgan.

Quick list in addition to the big names like Apple, Amazon, etc.

To make a point, don't applaud these companies much. Supporting abortion rights means workers who accidentally get pregnant can get a quick-and-easy abortion and keep working rather than taking maternity leave and causing the company marginal headaches. Paying for their travel to get the abortion is just fiscally cheaper than dealing with a rise in pregnancies, for the company. It's not really a position based on respect for women, for the most part.

I'm not saying condemn them. Just . . . don't think they're doing this out of nobility or kindness. It's absolutely about their bottom lines.

[Fugus]

@Rasulis

I really want to see them starting to retaliate by closing stores in these states and stating publicly WHY they are closing there and pulling out, including the military because I know this will completely jack up any concept of military readiness when the military have to worry about their kids well being when they hit puberty in one of these states or the fact ain't none of the female soldiers wanting to be stationed at these bases.

Can imagine having multiple soldiers on deployment have to be called home because their kids ended up pregnant and either hurt or killed in some back alley abortion or arrested for homicide because they took some morning after pill or traveled out of state or god knows what else. Or the courts go further and they get arrested for being gay or some other crap or some extreme crap where its a boyfriend girlfriend situation where one of them sends a photo of them getting head after the Alito gets rid of the protections on sodomy.

Once this starts hitting these states so hard that people don't even want to buy crops from them, then it might start to realize that we don't want to deal with this crap.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

They are interested in that when they believe that the core problem is that women are having too much sex...

Which is funny...because, if you exclude homosexual activities (which is another thing they desperately want), women are having exactly as much sex as men are. A decrease in the amount that women are having sex will directly affect the amount that men are having sex to the same degree.

- - - Updated - - -

To make a point, don't applaud these companies much. Supporting abortion rights means workers who accidentally get pregnant can get a quick-and-easy abortion and keep working rather than taking maternity leave and causing the company marginal headaches. Paying for their travel to get the abortion is just fiscally cheaper than dealing with a rise in pregnancies, for the company. It's not really a position based on respect for women, for the most part.

I'm not saying condemn them. Just . . . don't think they're doing this out of nobility or kindness. It's absolutely about their bottom lines.

Also:

https://www.businessinsider.com/amaz...oe-wade-2022-5

Amazon, Coca-Cola, Walmart, and 10 other companies have together donated $15.2 million in the last 6 years to political committees that oppose abortion, analysis finds

Some of these companies are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

[Ryom]

I get that the discussion has been poisoned by extremist conservatives and misogynists, but some of the pro-choice arguments here are seriously kind of stupid.
The extent and limits of abortions are ethically controversial for good reasons.

Example:

Also, "killing a fetus" is weird because the fetus literally can't survive without the host - you know, the woman with bodily autonomy.

This is just wrong, since a fetus becomes a baby by surviving birth, not by reaching some point of development that enables the fetus to do so. There are even cases of humans who survived their own late-term abortion (whether this would be called a miracle or a nightmare probably depends a lot on who you ask).
The point is, nowadays a fetus has a good chance of surviving after week ~25, so basically for the entire last three months of a normal pregnancy. And that makes it a lot harder to argue for an abortion without medical reasons in this timeframe.

On the other hand, it's obviously nonsense to treat an embryo/fetus in early pregenancy, with barely developed organs and no capability to feel, like a fully fledged human (especially considering how many pregnancies fail naturally during the first months, often even unnoticed). But wherever you draw the legal line between this and an actual sentient unborn child, it's going to be arbitrary. And thus controversial.
There's also the issue of disability-related abortions and eugenics.


Regarding the current situation in the US: The draconic abortion restrictions that some states (awfully many actually) are pushing are, aside from the vileness, simply idiotic. It won't stop women from getting abortions, it will just push them to use illegal and unsave means. And that will cost lives instead of saving them.
If they actually cared about getting abortion rates down, then maybe they should promote sex ed, contraceptives, good healthcare, and just provide support for pregnant women and mothers in general, without judging their circumstances. But of course these are all things that conservatives tend to dislike for some reason...

[s_bushido]

The extent and limits of abortions are ethically controversial for good reasons.

And are largely irrelevant, given that said extremist misogynists want to ban it entirely, despite the vast majority of abortions occurring in the first several weeks.

[Endus]

I get that the discussion has been poisoned by extremist conservatives and misogynists, but some of the pro-choice arguments here are seriously kind of stupid.
The extent and limits of abortions are ethically controversial for good reasons.

Example:

This is just wrong, since a fetus becomes a baby by surviving birth, not by reaching some point of development that enables the fetus to do so. There are even cases of humans who survived their own late-term abortion (whether this would be called a miracle or a nightmare probably depends a lot on who you ask).
The point is, nowadays a fetus has a good chance of surviving after week ~25, so basically for the entire last three months of a normal pregnancy. And that makes it a lot harder to argue for an abortion without medical reasons in this timeframe.

Nah. Just means you need to induce birth rather than use some other more-directly-harmful method of abortion. Ending the pregnancy should still be on the table, if you give a shit about women's bodily autonomy at all.

Once the fetus is out, it's up to doctors to keep it alive in the NICU.

There's also the issue of disability-related abortions and eugenics.

It's an imaginary "issue". Some people think it's gross and would never do such a thing. That's fine. Unless they're the one who's pregnant, why should their opinion matter? Why do they get to restrict someone else's basic rights to control the use of their own body?

Can we extend that to forcing people to donate tissue against their will if it'll help a patient recover from some condition? It's the same fundamental argument. If the process is gonna cause you constant pain and inconvenience for 9 months as the treatment continues, you've just gotta suck that up because you don't get a choice in whether you're harvested, and that's fine, right?

Or is that a super shitty and dehumanizing point of view and it remains just as shitty and dehumanizing if it's a woman hosting a fetus she doesn't want?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This is just wrong, since a fetus becomes a baby by surviving birth, not by reaching some point of development that enables the fetus to do so. There are even cases of humans who survived their own late-term abortion (whether this would be called a miracle or a nightmare probably depends a lot on who you ask).
The point is, nowadays a fetus has a good chance of surviving after week ~25, so basically for the entire last three months of a normal pregnancy. And that makes it a lot harder to argue for an abortion without medical reasons in this timeframe.

Great, let's allow woman to have their babies removed at 25 weeks then. Whatever happens to it after that is no longer her concern.

[Ryom]

And are largely irrelevant, given that said extremist misogynists want to ban it entirely, despite the vast majority of abortions occurring in the first several weeks.

Yeah sure, I'm not arguing for Republican positions here, I'm just surprised and a bit bewildered by how many posters here seem to think abortion is not a debatable issue, that there are no ethical problems involved and there should be no restrictions at all. Or at least that how is comes across.

Nah. Just means you need to induce birth rather than use some other more-directly-harmful method of abortion. Ending the pregnancy should still be on the table, if you give a shit about women's bodily autonomy at all.

Once the fetus is out, it's up to doctors to keep it alive in the NICU.

A forcefully induced premature birth would not be safe for the child, with a considerable risk of development issues or permanent damage. You would get people disabled as a direct result of a medically unnecessary procedure. I can't really wrap my head around how you 100% support the mother's needs and her bodily autonomy and and the same time entirely ignore the child and it's wellbeing, and even endorse endangering it, even during a birth that it's supposed to survive.

And well, at least here in Germany this isn't how it's done. There was a case here that made the news in the nineties where the fetus, against all expectations, survived an abortion even after not being tended to for hours after the birth. Was severely disabled but lived to the age of 21.
As of now the fetus is killed via lethal injection before inducing the birth in late-term abortions to avoid situations like that. And I'm not necessarily against that, it really depends on the situation, but I hope you can see why this is problematic?

It's an imaginary "issue". Some people think it's gross and would never do such a thing. That's fine. Unless they're the one who's pregnant, why should their opinion matter? Why do they get to restrict someone else's basic rights to control the use of their own body?

The reason why people think abortions should be regulated is because they think this is not just a personal decision when there is a third party involved - the fetus. Yeah, a fetus isn't a baby with full human rights and all, but at least at the point where the birth is really all that seperates one from the other I find it hard to think that is deserves no rights whatsoever. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Can we extend that to forcing people to donate tissue against their will if it'll help a patient recover from some condition? It's the same fundamental argument. If the process is gonna cause you constant pain and inconvenience for 9 months as the treatment continues, you've just gotta suck that up because you don't get a choice in whether you're harvested, and that's fine, right?

Or is that a super shitty and dehumanizing point of view and it remains just as shitty and dehumanizing if it's a woman hosting a fetus she doesn't want?

If you can't see the difference between a situation where someone dies because noone goes out of their way to help them, and where someone is actively killed for someone's convenience then i can't help you.

And I've never said women shouldn't have a choice about their pregnancy. But I think at some point they should make a decision and stand by it, to avoid abortions in the late stage of fetus development (there are exeptions of course).

Great, let's allow woman to have their babies removed at 25 weeks then. Whatever happens to it after that is no longer her concern.

See me reply to Endus.

[Dezerte]

It's really messed up if you consider the fact that living women have less bodily autonomy than corpses.

You can't (legally) take organs from a dead body without consent to save a life, but apparently pregnant women should just suck it up because we hate them or something (as if we've had millennia of systemic misogyny). And to top it all off, once that baby is out we're going to give zero shits about that baby's well-being and continue not caring about the mother. Let them live in poverty and misery, because as long as I feel righteous about it then all is well.

/rant over

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

See me reply to Endus.

Then they don't have a "good chance of surviving" after all.

- - - Updated - - -

And I've never said women shouldn't have a choice about their pregnancy. But I think at some point they should make a decision and stand by it, to avoid abortions in the late stage of fetus development (there are exeptions of course).

About 99% of abortions happen in the first 20 weeks. Of the remaining ~1%...most of those were pregancies that the mother had intended to carry to term...but something happened in the later stages of pregnancy that forced the issue.

The anti-abortion line of callous women murdering babies is fiction.

[Darththeo]

About 99% of abortions happen in the first 20 weeks. Of the remaining ~1%...most of those were pregancies that the mother had intended to carry to term...but something happened in the later stages of pregnancy that forced the issue.

The anti-abortion line of callous women murdering babies is fiction.

I believe around 50% of abortions are also just induced miscarriages. They always bring up the mechanical abortions and ignore that a lot of early abortions are chemical.

It is literally just conservatives making people up to be mad at.

[infinitemeridian]

The reason why people think abortions should be regulated is because they think this is not just a personal decision when there is a third party involved - the fetus. Yeah, a fetus isn't a baby with full human rights and all, but at least at the point where the birth is really all that seperates one from the other I find it hard to think that is deserves no rights whatsoever. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

So you concede that the fetus isn't a baby with full human rights, and yet we should still "think of the children" when it comes to trampling on the woman's? How does that make any sense?

[Splenda]

Here's something I don't understand.

Is someone who is "pro life" going to agree that allowing an abortion for an entopic pregnancy is okay? The fetus is not viable and the mother WILL die.

Yeah cool? So murdering an "unborn" is okay in this case.

If you say not even then, you are condemning a woman to death- the fetus is dead either way.

[Endus]

A forcefully induced premature birth would not be safe for the child, with a considerable risk of development issues or permanent damage. You would get people disabled as a direct result of a medically unnecessary procedure. I can't really wrap my head around how you 100% support the mother's needs and her bodily autonomy and and the same time entirely ignore the child and it's wellbeing, and even endorse endangering it, even during a birth that it's supposed to survive.

Because;

1> There is no "child". A fetus is not a child. Particularly at the stage of development most abortions are done.
2> The need of another individual in no other circumstance can justify the violation of a person's bodily autonomy. So why would abortion be a special exception to the general rule? There's never any explanation for this which doesn't boil down to an emotional kneejerk that treats women as lesser beings and thus less deserving of basic rights.

And well, at least here in Germany this isn't how it's done. There was a case here that made the news in the nineties where the fetus, against all expectations, survived an abortion even after not being tended to for hours after the birth. Was severely disabled but lived to the age of 21.
As of now the fetus is killed via lethal injection before inducing the birth in late-term abortions to avoid situations like that. And I'm not necessarily against that, it really depends on the situation, but I hope you can see why this is problematic?

I'm seeing an entirely emotional argument that treats women as lesser beings and thus less deserving of basic human rights. That's what you're describing here. That irrationality and the premise that women shouldn't have bodily autonomy are not convincing elements in that argument, once you stop reacting emotionally.

If you're under the impression that abortions are pretty and fun, maybe that argument would really bother you. I know they're ugly and distressing and a choice made in desperation when all other choices have failed.

The reason why people think abortions should be regulated is because they think this is not just a personal decision when there is a third party involved - the fetus. Yeah, a fetus isn't a baby with full human rights and all, but at least at the point where the birth is really all that seperates one from the other I find it hard to think that is deserves no rights whatsoever. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

It's easy to comprehend, it's just a bullshit pseudo-religious if not overtly-religious claim which doesn't actually make for a convincing counter-argument, because in literally any other circumstance, even the case of a 10-minute blood donation for transfusion that would save the life of a brilliant actual scientist who's on the verge of a breakthrough in cancer treatment, you can not force a person to give that transfusion against their will. Even though it would save an actual human life. Even though that human life is a positive influence on society. Even though it only takes 10 minutes of your time and has basically no real chance at any negative consequences, unlike pregnancy.

The answer's still "fuck no, forced tissue donation is weirdo fascist garbage".

So why would pregnancy, which is vastly more impactful and has a wide range of negatives to consider, be considered an exception to that standard rule? When the fetus isn't an actual human life, and there's no guarantee that any hypothetical human that might eventually exist is going to be a beneficial member of society, rather than, say, a drunk wife-beater who sideswipes and kills three kids at a crosswalk while driving drunk one day? Particularly relevant since one of the arguments as to why crime has dropped since the '80s is that abortion has been a legitimate option; https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...8319/w8319.pdf

If you can't see the difference between a situation where someone dies because noone goes out of their way to help them, and where someone is actively killed for someone's convenience then i can't help you.

Who said nobody should help the fetus? If it's viable, get it out with minimal harm and get it into the NICU. If it's not, saying it's being "killed" is pretty wildly hyperbolic; it's dying all on its own.

And I've never said women shouldn't have a choice about their pregnancy. But I think at some point they should make a decision and stand by it, to avoid abortions in the late stage of fetus development (there are exeptions of course).

If a right like bodily autonomy is conditional, then it isn't a right, and that means your argument is that women deserve fewer rights than men.

That's the problem. Some of us don't ignore that the pregnant woman's a real person and has rights. That's why this anti-choice nonsense falls flat.