SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

It could, however, if the Democrats get a Super majority in the Senate, they could pass the Right to Privacy as a Constitutional Amendment and include Medical privacy in it.

Basing this discussion on privacy laws was a backwards chickenshit workaround, in the first place. SCOTUS kicked the can down the road in writing their decision in Roe v. Wade, setting the stage for precisely this. It was never a "good" judgement.

Abortion rights shouldn't be covered under privacy rights at all. "Privacy" shouldn't even come up.

What needs to be passed is a right to "bodily autonomy", or "security of the person"; different terms for the same thing (Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the latter). If you want to get some dipshit Republicans to cross the aisle, point out that said right would prevent forced vaccinations or government tracking implants. Sure, the latter's nonsense and the former is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with vaccine mandates, but they don't pay enough attention to notice that; they'd have to explain to their base why they won't protect them from the government forced vaccinations.

Once you've got a right to bodily autonomy recognized, abortion rights are naturally and irrevocably included. In a much stronger sense than Roe v. Wade ever did.

Just frame it as the right to control your own body. Make it wildly generic on that basis. There's little to argue about once you make it that broad.

[Xilurm]

Man, watching twitter go apeshit over this is giving me headaches.

Why is everyone opinion so extreme? Why is no one having any calm discussions? Why are there discussions about the furthest of opposites and not a single discussion about the middle ground?

For example, one side is arguing about the fetus's life matters. Uh, you don't give a fuck about the fetus's life...

On the other side however, people use stuff like "they use their money to ban abortions, but won't give child support, free healtcare, maternal/paternal leave etc." I'm 100% sure if these things existed people would still want legal abortions. Even if crime was reduced to 0% and there was no rape, even if there were hundreds of thousands of orphanages all over the place that took care of the babies even if the parents don't want them.

Both sides are full of hypocrites.

[s_bushido]

Why is everyone opinion so extreme? Why is no one having any calm discussions? Why are there discussions about the furthest of opposites and not a single discussion about the middle ground?

Name a single reason anyone should be calm at the prospect of tens of millions of people being reduced to second-class citizens, with no say in what happens to their own bodies.

[Xilurm]

Name a single reason anyone should be calm at the prospect of tens of millions of people being reduced to second-class citizens, with no say in what happens to their own bodies.

Because it's better to teach the other side how and why your ideals are important, instead of just telling them they're a bunch retards that should just go and die.

[Darththeo]

Man, watching twitter go apeshit over this is giving me headaches.

Why is everyone opinion so extreme? Why is no one having any calm discussions? Why are there discussions about the furthest of opposites and not a single discussion about the middle ground?

For example, one side is arguing about the fetus's life matters. Uh, you don't give a fuck about the fetus's life...

On the other side however, people use stuff like "they use their money to ban abortions, but won't give child support, free healtcare, maternal/paternal leave etc." I'm 100% sure if these things existed people would still want legal abortions. Even if crime was reduced to 0% and there was no rape, even if there were hundreds of thousands of orphanages all over the place that took care of the babies even if the parents don't want them.

Both sides are full of hypocrites.

Because there is no middle ground here. Either you believe that woman have bodily autonomy or that they don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's better to teach the other side how and why your ideals are important, instead of just telling them they're a bunch retards that should just go and die.

People have tried that and got no where. What is the saying about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Because it's better to teach the other side how and why your ideals are important, instead of just telling them they're a bunch retards that should just go and die.

That method has been tried ad nauseum. It doesn't work.

[Captain N]

And here we have it -- "But both sides". Yeah fuck that. We've seen how this shit starts before when a system of government starts eliminating rights from certain groups. It never stops with just one. When the other side starts actively turning a group of people into brood mares or enforcing restrictions on them that are not placed on others we'll talk.

[Shadowferal]

Because it's better to teach the other side how and why your ideals are important, instead of just telling them they're a bunch retards that should just go and die.

Tried that back in the 19th century. Doesn't work when one ideal is clearly wrong.

This shit will be a package deal. Contraception and gay marriage is next.

[Endus]

Man, watching twitter go apeshit over this is giving me headaches.

Why is everyone opinion so extreme? Why is no one having any calm discussions? Why are there discussions about the furthest of opposites and not a single discussion about the middle ground?

"Everyone, including women, should have the final say over what happens to their own bodies" is not in any respect an "extreme position".

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's better to teach the other side how and why your ideals are important, instead of just telling them they're a bunch retards that should just go and die.

They disagree with that ideal. They think women are brood mares for society and a lower class of creature than men, which is why they seek to deny them that ownership and agency over their own bodies.

That's literally the debate. There is no middle ground. It's a binary question. You either respect women's basic bodily autonomy, or you do not.

[Xilurm]

Because there is no middle ground here. Either you believe that woman have bodily autonomy or that they don't.

I don't think it's that simple.

Like, abortions should 100% be legal if a woman gets raped. That makes perfect sense. She didn't want this conception, not to mention the mental scars and trauma it might induce, that's not healthy for her and if she ends up having the baby that's not healthy for it too considering she might hate it.

Abortions should also be legal if the pregnancy poses a danger to the mother's healthy. That's a no-brainer really. You aint gonna force her to die for the baby, even if it's in the very late stages.

However, what about a woman that decides to conceive one day, is perfectly ok with it. Has no health problems or financial problems. But then one month later she wakes up and is like "Hmm, you know what, I changed my mind, I don't want a baby right now, might try again in a few years though..." The exact same way someone would decide to change a shirt because they didn't like the colour. Why shouldn't there be any repercussions for that? The same way there are for a father or a mother who abandons their child after birth? I mean, naturally it's their life right? They should technically be free to give up the child instead of wasting 18 or however years of their lives raising it.

Abortion should be legal because it being banned could destroy a lot of lives. However I don't think people should be proud about it. As if it some achievement to have had an abortion.

This is what I mean by middle ground you see?

In a country like America, where the goverment doesn't care about its citizens and there's no health care, and you need to pay ten thousand fucking dollars to have a child, which mind you is one of the most natural things to do in life, yet they still managed to capitalize on it because they can, there's simply no other option.

Maybe in a futuristic, utopian society where everyone has free health care, pregnancy is painless, and children have their every need taken care of even if they are "abandoned" by their parents. Maybe then.

[Mekh]

I don't think it's that simple.

Like, abortions should 100% be legal if a woman gets raped. That makes perfect sense.

The rape concession is the weirdest red herring, considering that if you're taking it at face value, the rapist needs to be convicted first, which barely ever happens within 9 months. It's nothing but a feel-good allowance that means nothing.

[Endus]

I don't think it's that simple.

Like, abortions should 100% be legal if a woman gets raped. That makes perfect sense. She didn't want this conception, not to mention the mental scars and trauma it might induce, that's not healthy for her and if she ends up having the baby that's not healthy for it too considering she might hate it.

Then you've admitted that it isn't about the fetus, at all, and any arguments to that effect are intentionally misleading nonsense you know you don't actually believe. You can't have this both ways. The above statement is an admission that pro-choice positions are correct and pro-life arguments have no justification other than punishing women for religious "moral" violations.

However, what about a woman that decides to conceive one day, is perfectly ok with it. Has no health problems or financial problems. But then one month later she wakes up and is like "Hmm, you know what, I changed my mind, I don't want a baby right now, might try again in a few years though..." The exact same way someone would decide to change a shirt because they didn't like the colour. Why shouldn't there be any repercussions for that? The same way there are for a father or a mother who abandons their child after birth? I mean, naturally it's their life right? They should technically be free to give up the child instead of wasting 18 or however years of their lives raising it.

How is this meaningfully different from the rape example?

And don't reference the rape itself; that's a past event that has no direct bearing. What matters is that the woman has decided she does not want to continue the pregnancy. The reason why shouldn't factor in, at all.

Why shouldn't there be any repercussions? For what? There isn't any non-religious basis for inflicting any repercussions whatsoever. It's like asking what the "repercussions" should be for getting a blood transfusion. Even if you're not a Jehovah's Witness.

Abortion should be legal because it being banned could destroy a lot of lives. However I don't think people should be proud about it. As if it some achievement to have had an abortion.

Literally nobody does this, except as a "fuck you" to assholes trying to deny them basic rights and freedoms.

This is what I mean by middle ground you see?

I really, really don't. Your "middle ground" seems to be carving out a system whereby religious extremists get to force non-believers to abide by the extremists' religious moral codes, under penalty of law, and where women's basic human rights as people are denied. Even situationally, that's still "denied".

Maybe in a futuristic, utopian society where everyone has free health care, pregnancy is painless, and children have their every need taken care of even if they are "abandoned" by their parents. Maybe then.

It's how it is in Canada. And has been for 30+ years. No issues at all, up here.

- - - Updated - - -

The rape concession is the weirdest red herring, considering that if you're taking it at face value, the rapist needs to be convicted first, which barely ever happens within 9 months. It's nothing but a feel-good allowance that means nothing.

The rape exception is basically just a straight-up admission that the one arguing for it has the intent and goal of suppressing women's basic human rights. They just know they'll look like raving misogynists if they come right out and say that. So they try and make that exception to look more "reasonable".

Here's the base reason why; you're pinning your opposition to abortion on the fetus and its' supposed "rights" (it doesn't have any, I'm allowing the argument for a moment to demonstrate the failure). Does the rape-fetus carry the blame of its rapist father? If not, how is this a meaningful exception?

Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is traumatic and abusive regardless of whether the initial conception was the result of rape or not. It is, in fact, much the same kind of thing as rape; you're forcing your interests on her body and denying her the agency and control over her own body.

[Xyonai]

Both sides are full of hypocrites.

B U T B O T H S I D E S!!!!!!!

Fuck off with this, your big 'gotcha' about Pro-Choice hypocrisy is a load of garbage anyway when you can't seem to parse together that it's taking the piss out of Pro-Life hypocrisy anyway. Because those dipshits pearl clutching about 'muh sanctity of life' actively fight against any movement or legislation to actually make having and raising kids easier and/or actively fight against simply making it easier to not have kids in the first place (gutting sex ed, fighting against contraceptives for some stupid reason).

[Traveler Voltin]

Some things should not be controlled by the states.
States rights is a bullcrap in this case.

The supreme court has failed the people.
Something must be done.

[Darththeo]

I don't think it's that simple.

Like, abortions should 100% be legal if a woman gets raped. That makes perfect sense. She didn't want this conception, not to mention the mental scars and trauma it might induce, that's not healthy for her and if she ends up having the baby that's not healthy for it too considering she might hate it.

Except rape trials take longer than a pregnancy. And even the shortest one the woman would beyond the viability point for the fetus by weeks. This is an argument from someone attempting to build a middle ground where none exists.

Abortions should also be legal if the pregnancy poses a danger to the mother's healthy. That's a no-brainer really. You aint gonna force her to die for the baby, even if it's in the very late stages.

All pregnancies risk the mother's health. So what level of risk is acceptable? Guaranteed death or is a 90% chance of death enough? Where do you draw the line?

However, what about a woman that decides to conceive one day, is perfectly ok with it. Has no health problems or financial problems. But then one month later she wakes up and is like "Hmm, you know what, I changed my mind, I don't want a baby right now, might try again in a few years though..." The exact same way someone would decide to change a shirt because they didn't like the colour. Why shouldn't there be any repercussions for that? The same way there are for a father or a mother who abandons their child after birth? I mean, naturally it's their life right? They should technically be free to give up the child instead of wasting 18 or however years of their lives raising it.

You just built a fake person and going "We can't allow these people to exist." No one thinks like that.
You are taking people trolling literal here.

Abortion should be legal because it being banned could destroy a lot of lives. However I don't think people should be proud about it. As if it some achievement to have had an abortion.

This is what I mean by middle ground you see?

There is no middle ground. You are clearly on one side pretending you're in the middle.

In a country like America, where the goverment doesn't care about its citizens and there's no health care, and you need to pay ten thousand fucking dollars to have a child, which mind you is one of the most natural things to do in life, yet they still managed to capitalize on it because they can, there's simply no other option.

Maybe in a futuristic, utopian society where everyone has free health care, pregnancy is painless, and children have their every need taken care of even if they are "abandoned" by their parents. Maybe then.

It costs on average, about 17K to have a child in the United States, prior to Roe it was 1500 on average. Having children can literally put a family so much into a hole, that they can't get out of it. Especially when the same people restricting abortion want to keep the minimum wage below poverty levels and keep healthcare unaffordable.

[Gestopft]

The rape concession is the weirdest red herring, considering that if you're taking it at face value, the rapist needs to be convicted first, which barely ever happens within 9 months. It's nothing but a feel-good allowance that means nothing.

I hadn't thought of that in terms of how long convictions take. The rape exception definitely needs to be pushed back against/handwaved away. If they truly believe the zygote/fetus deserves rights, then the rape should be irrelevant to their line of thinking. It's just something they can say to try and appear less ghoulish.

[Poopymonster]

Some things should not be controlled by the states.
States rights is a bullcrap in this case.

The supreme court has failed the people.
Something must be done.

It failed the people.
It succeeded at what they were put there to do.

[Endus]

Some things should not be controlled by the states.
States rights is a bullcrap in this case.

The supreme court has failed the people.
Something must be done.

Simple principle; anything to do with "rights" must be federal. At the State level, you're talking about regional privileges.

[Darththeo]

Simple principle; anything to do with "rights" must be federal. At the State level, you're talking about regional privileges.

Until we understand that the rights people have in USA are granted by the people to the people and not a document, we are going to be dealing with this kind of idiocy.

[Poopymonster]

As something I saw this morning said:
If you are pro life, I sincerely hope your spouse cheats on you and there is a pregnancy. They now have to keep the kid.
You asked for it.