SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

Well, feticide is recognized homicide or murder in 29 states, and 8 others it depends on the age. We also have the Uborn Victims of Violence Act which specifically defines that a fetus killed during a violent crime is considered homicide/murder.

I agree that a fetus is not a human being, but that's most of the country and federal govt have laws saying that a fetus is the equivalent to a human being.

That's a wild misrepresentation of those laws. They in no way state that a fetus is the equivalent of a human being. In fact, the existence of those laws is a concrete demonstration that the law does not consider them equivalent. If it did, such laws wouldn't be necessary; it would be covered under existing homicide laws.

They're a statement that a fetus is not a human person, but the law will punish some actions as if they had been. That's not just not an equivalence, it's a rejection of equivalence.

[Fugus]

Dude it's simple... A clump of cells develops Into a fully functioning human. It's just a stage of development.

Is a.toddler not deserving of.rights as an adult because they can't speak properly?

Dude it’s simple….

Those cells haven’t developed into a functioning human at that point and has no consciousness yet.

Can’t go by what is could happen but what is otherwise you will be dealing with the hypothetical of any infection we have mutating into a form of sentience and dealing with any of them could be murder.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then if you're not psychologically ready to have a baby then perhaps don't have sex?

And there it is. "The stupid argument" used ad nauseum. People like sex. People use contraceptives. People get pregnant anyway.

No infants die. Mostly zygotes. Maybe a few fetuses. You can stop talking about "Baby" or "infant" murder. Because none are.

And for all your crazy ranting, Republicans in red states are giving lots of exception to their state wide abortion bans. Outright abortion bans are wildly unpopular among the populace. Representatives represent the opinions of their electorate. Good luck EVER getting this thing banned on a federal level.

- - - Updated - - -

All this arguing about whether or not Abortion should be legal or is ethical is pointless. Dobbs only overturned Roe V Wade because there was no constitutional basis for the Roe v Wade ruling. And yes, if you take a look over the constitution Abortion, and furthermore healthcare, are not rights that are defined. So, Abortion falls under the ninth amendment, meaning it's a reserved power and can be regulated, or not, by the states.

So, I agree with the Dobbs ruling that there was no constitutional basis for the Roe ruling.

However, It seems that there may be enough states in favor of abortion to try the convention method of adding an amendment. That would be the best way as I doubt congress would pass law or the SCOTUS composition to change any time soon. It does seem there is going to be more republicans in seats across both state assemblies and congress.

Roe v Wade ruling was based entirely upon the laws around privacy of medical records. You can't prosecute someone for abortion, if you can't gain access to their medical records. That was the sort of basis for it that led to the floodgates of legalization. Was it paper thin? Sure. But the decision should have stood as is with that being the basis. We need more concrete laws legalizing it, but overturning Roe v Wade was still dumb considering even the thin precedent it was ruled on.

[Rasulis]

Maternity care deserts map 2016 vs. 2020.

Some states improved. Five counties in California went from low access to moderate access, and three counties went from low access to fully accessible. With the exception of Florida, the Southern and Midwest states have overall gotten substantially worse.

# of Maternity Care Desert Counties went up from 1085 to 1119
# of Low Access Maternity Care Counties went up from 367 to 373
# of Moderate Access to Maternity Care Counties went down from 273 to 223
# of Counties with Access to Maternity Care went up from 1411 to 1427

[Poopymonster]

Giving birth after an unwanted pregnancy is not easy, don't you get it ? It is called a "trauma". You are kinda devoid of empathy, aren't you ?

It's also fucking expensive.

[Fugus]

I personally think the 24 week mark at 50% viability is probably the best point in time to say it shouldn't be allowed. And that's what most people think of when they hear "abortion" they imagine a dnc/dne/dnx.

Then you should be pleased to know that over 90% of abortions happen within the first 20 weeks and almost all late stage abortions consist mainly of cases where the fetus has died in the womb and the mother can choose to abort it dead baby or be forced to give birth to a corpse or there are complications where the baby won’t survive the birthing process and will likely maim or kill the mother in the process or the baby has some physical defect where it won’t likely survive long and will have a painful life if it did.

So the whole abortion thing the Republicans are talking about is a crock as they don’t care about the baby so much as they care about the control and forced suffering of those they see as lesser which is evidenced by how they abandon that child once born.

To quote George Carlin, “ If you are pre born you are fine, if you are preschool you are fucked. They only want live babies so they can make dead soldiers”

[AntiFascistVoter]

Is Bernie being tone-deaf?



But I also remember him saying this in 2012 and 2016. That vagina voters and <IdPol> got in the way of his economic populism.

[Endus]

Is Bernie being tone-deaf?

But I also remember him saying this in 2012 and 2016. That vagina voters and <IdPol> got in the way of his economic populism.

It's stupid. You don't campaign on your entire platform, you campaign on the central issues that are most significant to the populace, especially when it's something this binary and brazen. It's essentially Mazlowe's Hierarchy of Needs; voters concerned about their basic security of self or basic rights in general aren't going to be particularly concerned about lesser issues. That doesn't mean those lesser issues aren't also important, they're just not as immediately critical. It would be nice if we had less income inequality, but that's a concern that can regain primary focus when women aren't being treated as breeding stock rather than human beings.

The same way that depression and anxiety and other mental health concerns are a big deal, but if people are starving to death in the streets, that's a bigger concern.

[Canpinter]

Is Bernie being tone-deaf?



But I also remember him saying this in 2012 and 2016. That vagina voters and <IdPol> got in the way of his economic populism.

How is it tone deaf? All he seems to be saying is don't make abortion rights the only topic your campaign on. It's perfectly reasonable advice, hell he even says abortion should be democrats main focus.

[Shadowferal]

How is it tone deaf? All he seems to be saying is don't make abortion rights the only topic your campaign on. It's perfectly reasonable advice, hell he even says abortion should be democrats main focus.

I agree. Bernie is just saying that democrats are making a mistake in focusing on a singular issue.

[NineSpine]

All this arguing about whether or not Abortion should be legal or is ethical is pointless. Dobbs only overturned Roe V Wade because there was no constitutional basis for the Roe v Wade ruling. And yes, if you take a look over the constitution Abortion, and furthermore healthcare, are not rights that are defined. So, Abortion falls under the ninth amendment, meaning it's a reserved power and can be regulated, or not, by the states.

So, I agree with the Dobbs ruling that there was no constitutional basis for the Roe ruling.

However, It seems that there may be enough states in favor of abortion to try the convention method of adding an amendment. That would be the best way as I doubt congress would pass law or the SCOTUS composition to change any time soon. It does seem there is going to be more republicans in seats across both state assemblies and congress.

I find it hard to take seriously the constitutional opinion of someone who thinks Roe gave anyone a right to an abortion, when it did no such thing.

- - - Updated - - -

It's stupid. You don't campaign on your entire platform, you campaign on the central issues that are most significant to the populace, especially when it's something this binary and brazen. It's essentially Mazlowe's Hierarchy of Needs; voters concerned about their basic security of self or basic rights in general aren't going to be particularly concerned about lesser issues. That doesn't mean those lesser issues aren't also important, they're just not as immediately critical. It would be nice if we had less income inequality, but that's a concern that can regain primary focus when women aren't being treated as breeding stock rather than human beings.

The same way that depression and anxiety and other mental health concerns are a big deal, but if people are starving to death in the streets, that's a bigger concern.

Running a single issue national campaign is an incredibly stupid political strategy.

[fwc577]

Running a single issue national campaign is an incredibly stupid political strategy.

How did it go again? Was it "Lock her up!"?

[postman1782]

She can easily put her baby for adoption. And yes I know the adoption process ain't perfect but that's not a justification to not give a baby a chance in life.

- - - Updated - - -



Whether is a zygote, embryo, baby. It's all a human. Different stages of human life is still. A human.

The day fertilized eggs turns into a carrot then come back to me

The adoption system is already overloaded with the 400k in the system. Adding 600k+ a year, will break it.

[s_bushido]

How did it go again? Was it "Lock her up!"?

Ah, but you see, there was also "Build the wall!" See, they cared about multiple stupid-ass things.


I also don't know why anyone bites on that shitposter's (Varx) bait. Just ignore it until its inevitable ban again. It just says the same crap every time anyway.

[NineSpine]

How did it go again? Was it "Lock her up!"?

That wasn’t an issue campaign. That was the political version of a white person crossing the street to avoid a black person and then tells everyone they almost got mugged.

[tehdang]

All this arguing about whether or not Abortion should be legal or is ethical is pointless. Dobbs only overturned Roe V Wade because there was no constitutional basis for the Roe v Wade ruling. And yes, if you take a look over the constitution Abortion, and furthermore healthcare, are not rights that are defined. So, Abortion falls under the ninth amendment, meaning it's a reserved power and can be regulated, or not, by the states.

So, I agree with the Dobbs ruling that there was no constitutional basis for the Roe ruling.

However, It seems that there may be enough states in favor of abortion to try the convention method of adding an amendment. That would be the best way as I doubt congress would pass law or the SCOTUS composition to change any time soon. It does seem there is going to be more republicans in seats across both state assemblies and congress.

I really doubt enough states would agree to any amendment beyond making abortion legal before 15weeks.

[NineSpine]

That's why the convention is the best method, as it would truly test the waters state by state. If the consensus is that it it shouldn't be allowed, or allowed with restrictions than that would be constitutionally protected. Better that than not at all.

The best method is to crush Republicans politically because Americans don't like their shitty policy ideas about reproductive rights.

[Shadowferal]

That's why the convention is the best method, as it would truly test the waters state by state.

Yea...because gop state legislatures will allow that to happen. /s

[tehdang]

That's why the convention is the best method, as it would truly test the waters state by state. If the consensus is that it it shouldn't be allowed, or allowed with restrictions than that would be constitutionally protected. Better that than not at all.

The other state-by-state process is the state legislatures voting state-by-state, and the governor signing the bill. That's the status quo now.

It also has the unpleasant political angle of dividing the red states. If the contemplated legislation is an amendment protecting abortion before 15 weeks, it pits certain states with that law already on the books against those with tighter restrictions. Florida against Texas and Utah against West Virginia, if you will. Representatives (to the convention of states) might shrink from telling other states what to do. Also, I doubt blue states even sign on to anything less than 24 weeks in principle. I agree with you that it would be better than a national, Congressional bans, or protection, but it still has quite a few hurdles to clear. It might take some years of state legislature fights to see what can currently change about existing state bans and restrictions on abortion. The People sort out their differences that really have been hidden behind Roe for most of the last 50 years, then the state convention looks more promising.

[tehdang]

Yeah, it would be very reminiscent of the push for suffrage. And then all the protections as a constitutional right would be in place.

In the sense that the popular movement precedes the legislative successes. And the popular movement, or both popular movements, are only now truly taking shape. This is the post-Roe and post-Casey world now.