SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[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]

[Shadowferal]

‘The dog that caught the car’: Republicans brace for the impact of reversing Roe

Everything was going right for Republicans in the midterm campaign. Then the Supreme Court decision came down.

Republicans finally got the Roe v. Wade decision they wanted, and in public, they are delighted.

More quietly, however, according to interviews with more than a dozen Republican strategists and party officials, they just didn’t want it to come right now — not during a midterm election campaign in which nearly everything had been going right for the GOP.

“This is not a conversation we want to have,” said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country. “We want to have a conversation about the economy. We want to have a conversation about Joe Biden, about pretty much anything else besides Roe … This is a losing issue for Republicans.”

Republicans, said Sarah Longwell, a moderate Republican strategist who became a vocal supporter of Joe Biden in 2020, are now “the dog that caught the car.”

But even if Roe alone is not sufficient to remake the midterms in Democrats’ favor, it could fit into what Longwell called an “overall case the Democratic Party should be prosecuting against Republicans” — wedding Roe with the court’s decision the previous day on gun control, among other issues, to depict the post-Donald Trump GOP as one still animated by extremes.

On Friday, the court provided fodder for that line of attack, when Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, argued the court “should reconsider” protections for contraception access and same-sex marriage. And the post-Roe fallout itself will reverberate in states for months, focusing attention on state-level campaigns as red-leaning states prepare to enact restrictions.

Already, Republicans are wincing at the consequences. In the swing state of Pennsylvania, Democrats have been pummeling the Republican gubernatorial nominee, Doug Mastriano, for a position opposing abortion rights that includes no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. In Georgia, another swing state, the Republican U.S. Senate nominee, Herschel Walker, is facing similar criticism. In a message that Democrats will likely repeat for months, incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock issued a fundraising appeal on Friday afternoon with the subject line: “Our opponent says he wants a total ban on abortion.”

[tehdang]

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

People never accused you of hypocrisy regarding your coffee. But let me know if they do.

1) We're talking about less than 1% of abortions here, and that far in, usually the pregnant woman doesn't want an abortion

Hmm, and why is that? I just read through a dozen posts showing that it's foolhardy to consider it an issue beside bodily autonomy. Are pregnant women unaware that their baby's continued existence is akin to a forced organ donation?

, but it's an emergency situation.

Emergency delivery, without making sure the baby is dead beforehand, is a thing. Adoptions, safe surrender, reform of the medical expenses surrounding childbirth, reform of state services are all on the table.

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.

I have yet to hear a major pro-choice presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial candidate speak up for restrictions in line with post-viability abortions. Stacey Abrams was just asked if she favors any, and had a pretty typical response:

Question: Do you support any limitation on abortion, or does it do you think that women should have a right to have an abortion all the way up to nine months?
Abrams: I believe that abortion is a medical decision and I believe it should be a choice made between a doctor and a woman, in consultation with her family

I'm going to say it hasn't been a de-facto standard in any meaningful way. The de-facto standard is to NEVER talk about any restriction and ONLY talk about the woman and/or her doctor, effectively saying they should have indisputable authority the whole way through.

See additionally:
https://archive.ph/Ufg9u

Hint: Pro-choice advocates would be wise to re-establish common-sense limits if they want to change state laws, instead of whine about newfound powerlessness. Pages 149-150-151-152-153 of this thread are pretty instructive for any new person that thinks reasonable limits are a core to pro-choice dialogue. Frame it on the wall and gesture at it each time people get confused in this next decade's legislative fights.

[Kaleredar]

People never accused you of hypocrisy regarding your coffee. But let me know if they do.

Hmm, and why is that? I just read through a dozen posts showing that it's foolhardy to consider it an issue beside bodily autonomy.

...because if women, who previously had the freedom to get an abortion, had wanted to get one they likely would have gotten one before nine months, and would only get one at nine months if some dire situation required it.

Are pregnant women unaware that their baby's continued existence is akin to a forced organ donation?

This attempt at a gotcha is meaningless.

Emergency delivery, without making sure the baby is dead beforehand, is a thing. Adoptions, safe surrender, reform of the medical expenses surrounding childbirth, reform of state services are all on the table.

When have conservative politicians ever espoused any interest in supporting or funding those things in any comprehensive and meaningful way?

And I don't mean someone saying the same "well it's something that could be done" kicking-the-can-down-the-curb blowoff you did, I mean actual legislation put to paper, ready to be voted into effect.

I have yet to hear a major pro-choice presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial candidate speak up for restrictions in line with post-viability abortions. Stacey Abrams was just asked if she favors any, and had a pretty typical response:


I'm going to say it hasn't been a de-facto standard in any meaningful way. The de-facto standard is to NEVER talk about any restriction and ONLY talk about the woman and/or her doctor, effectively saying they should have indisputable authority the whole way through.

See additionally:
https://archive.ph/Ufg9u

Hint: Pro-choice advocates would be wise to re-establish common-sense limits if they want to change state laws, instead of whine about newfound powerlessness. Pages 149-150-151-152-153 of this thread are pretty instructive for any new person that thinks reasonable limits are a core to pro-choice dialogue. Frame it on the wall and gesture at it each time people get confused in this next decade's legislative fights.

"Abortions at 9 months" are so statistically irrelevant that they shouldn't even enter into the discussion.

You're pearl-clutching and hand-wringing about an issue that doesn't exist, and using this nonexistent issue as the major driving force of your argument that, because some women could potentially get an abortion at 9 months, that you think the entire nation should air on the side that no women should be able to get abortions, ever. That you would prefer the second, so long as the first was even the remotest possibility.

[Edge-]

People never accused you of hypocrisy regarding your coffee. But let me know if they do.

I'm sure it's intentional that you're not addressing it, but my point is that "mourning" isn't relevant to a discussion on peoples fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

[Jastall]

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.

You always bristle whenever anyone brings up slavery in the context of American history and legality but it seems you're allowed to bring it out of left field in some attempt to make an asinine gotcha. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I understood the context perfectly, and for the record and I don't entirely disagree with RobertoCarlos. It's not as simple as the fetus being a disposable clump of cells. That being said, this truth does not mean I believe the mother's right do not supercede the fetus's. The idea of a golden mean is fallacious in this context, much like in the context of slavery that you decided to bring to the table.

[VMSmith]

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.

A simple question can illuminate the fact that they do not really believe fetuses are actual children or babies:

If a fertility clinic were on fire and you only had the time to save either A)10,000 fertilized eggs, or B)One 2-year old child in the clinic, which would you choose?

Almost no one would ever choose the eggs, even though by the anti-choicers logic it should be the correct choice.

[Poopymonster]

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.

I hope they had life insurance for the fetus.
What? You can't get LIFE insurance until its been born and now a baby in the US?
You typically can't even get it until the baby is 2 weeks old?
It's almost like legally the yardstick for fetus to baby is being fucking born.
You gotta wait for the thing to be squirted out alive to claim it on your taxes. The IRS has such a sense of humor, they'd love it.

- - - Updated - - -

The Huckabeast has spoken.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she wants kids in the womb to be as safe as kids in a classroom.
......
Yeah. Just. Yeah. Wow.

[Darththeo]

A simple question can illuminate the fact that they do not really believe fetuses are actual children or babies:

If a fertility clinic were on fire and you only had the time to save either A)10,000 fertilized eggs, or B)One 2-year old child in the clinic, which would you choose?

Almost no one would ever choose the eggs, even though by the anti-choicers logic it should be the correct choice.

You ever see when a forced birther is asked that question? You get them either stammering because they know they will seem crazy if they say the eggs or they'll just turn around an insult you calling you a sick minded person.

[Shadowferal]

Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she wants kids in the womb to be as safe as kids in a classroom.
......
Yeah. Just. Yeah. >p>Wow.

Ulvade parents would like to have a word with her.

[Rasulis]

The same politicians that claimed to be pro-life are the same ones that refused to extend free school meal program.

Congress made school meals free for 2 years. Now, Republicans don't want to extend the program.

Truly caring individuals.

[Darththeo]

The same politicians that claimed to be pro-life are the same ones that refused to extend free school meal program.

Congress made school meals free for 2 years. Now, Republicans don't want to extend the program.

Truly caring individuals.

You are talking about the party who thinks the phrase "Pull yourself up by your own bootstrap" means something positive when it is meant to mean something that cannot be done. They think adversity is a good thing.

They literally have people who think it is a good thing to make voting difficult. Ignoring difficulty does not mean security.

[Mihalik]

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

I double checked, and I seem to be partially wrong.

Of the 13 states with trigger laws only Wyoming would go after the abortion recipient. Tho it's abortion law is also one of the most severe as it counts any type of termination after "conception" to be illegal.

Their law seems intentionally written to include Plan B. So I expect that will be the next legal battle there.

Tho all the other abortion bans are worded as such that they would punish whoever performs the abortion. If Plan B gets classified not as a contraceptive but as an "abortion drug" they could go after any woman who self administers.

And they can already likely do the same to any woman who orders abortion drugs online and self administers. Most abortions are literally medicated terminations. You take some pills and that's it, there's no "medical intervention".

And that is likely to influence many of the upcoming abortion bans.