SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Crissi]

At what point does the right of the mother supercede the right to life of the baby?

Viability has always been the definition of where the line is. The vast majority of people dont approve of past 20 weeks except for risk of mother's life anyway.

[zorkuus]

Should women be allowed to kill their children if they don't like them then?

This is like one of those circumcision threads we had here ages ago. Equally asinine.

[Skytotem]

Why can't you guys just seperate into 50 different countries if you can't all live by the same laws?

Infrastructure, companies, govt programs, etc are all too interconnected.

[szechuan]

At what point does the right of the mother supercede the right to life of the baby?

Yet again, it's an UNBORN baby.

[D Luniz]

So 8 months and 3 weeks is fine to abort? Not a real baby?

- - - Updated - - -



Should women be allowed to kill their children if they don't like them then?

release those pearls, its bad for your joints

the only time abortions ever occur that long past vaiablity is that the fetus died, and is going to kill the woman.

[Crissi]

Yet again, it's not an UNBORN baby.

I mean, the law does actually recognise that if you kill a woman thats at 30 weeks, you've killed 2 people and are charged as such. Just that the line is where the baby can survive outside the mother, because body autonomy

[eschatological]

I mean, the law does actually recognise that if you kill a woman thats at 30 weeks, you've killed 2 people and are charged as such. Just that the line is where the baby can survive outside the mother, because body autonomy

The problem is viability is a shifting line. What is viable today wasn't viable 50 years ago, and what was viable then wasn't viable 100 years ago. There'll be a day when an embryo can be "viable" from conception and then clinging to viability will lead the right wing down this same path of outlawing all abortion.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Unborn Babies have inalienable rights?

Should just call fetuses what they are... Illegal aliens. An abortion is just deportation.

[Azadina]

How do you force women to carry an unwanted child? Do you lock them up or something?

Don't give them ideas please. Nutcases will fully run with those sorta ideas.

[Crissi]

The problem is viability is a shifting line. What is viable today wasn't viable 50 years ago, and what was viable then wasn't viable 100 years ago. There'll be a day when an embryo can be "viable" from conception and then clinging to viability will lead the right wing down this same path of outlawing all abortion.

If we''re at that point technologically, I hope we'd also be able to remove all our eggs and store them for a future wanted pregnancy through an incubator, and thus can have our tubes tied and thus never worry about an unwanted pregnancy. Otherwise I get what you're saying

[tehdang]

What about the rest of Alito's writing? He was setting up ther abolition of gay marriage and making sodomy illegal. Then similar can apply to interacial marriage, contraception use, etc.

The logic is terrifying in its broadness, and given historical gbigotedness of states it shouldnt be left to them.

Oh, and some states are already trying to make it illegal to go to a state where abortion is legal to have an abortion, so that "states rights" l;ogic can go fuck itself out the window

I'm still reading the decision. Remember, this was the work of the conservative legal movement for 40 years. I'm not rushing.

I think just the first two pages should settle in your mind what I think about "historical bigotedness of states it shouldnt be left to them." It's a Democracy. If it's not in the constitution, agreed with upon states joining/founding, then the people's representatives decide. Not somebody that thinks government is too important to be left to people that think differently than you. You're the bigot in their eyes, and them in yours.

I guess I finally know where you actually stand on an actual policy. Not at all shocked this is your stance.

Hmm? People have asked all kinds of things about what I think on policy/policies. I gather the general furor over what I think shortcuts people assimilating the fact that I stated what and why. Just look for all the charges of hypocrisy over what people think are contradictory beliefs.

But Abortion is a fucking constitutionally protected right, thanks to the 14th amendment.

This won't be the victory you think it is.

You'll be surprised to know that the 14th amendment doesn't mention abortion, and it appears several justices don't think it's implied to some degree. Legal scholars will both agree and disagree with that, depending on who you ask. Remember, stuff has a greater claim to "fucking constitutionally protected right," because it's actually mentioned in the constitution. If you have problems with the constitutional right to peaceably assemble, or the right to bear arms, then you're coming smack dab against the constitution.

When I was in law school, the President of our school's Federalist Society would argue with our Civ Pro professor, an actual Civil Rights attorney, that Brown v. the Board of Education was an illegitimate decision, because of stare decisis. Strict originalism is, at its roots, a morally bankrupt and void lens through which to view the Constitution. Those who view it as such are petty tyrants.

I guess I don't have to ask you what you really think.

I'll give my own: People that view laws as just what they want the outcome to be today should not be trusted with any power, and are no friend to self-government or creating nations that last. Their criticisms of "moral bankruptcy" and "void lens" mask their own arrogance at preaching their own morality and abridging laws with no consequence.

There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. That is true. But there is a very strong implicit argument to be made that there is (which is what the right to abortion is made on). By literally denying the pillar on which Roe stands on, the Court is essentially saying there is no right to privacy - a state can go back to making homosexuality illegal, making interracial marriage illegal, and so on, and so forth. This opinion already criticizes Lawrence/Obergefell, and prominent Republican Congress critters have been on the record criticizing Loving (interracial marriage) and so on and so forth.

It is anti-democratic to its core.

Alito writes on what went into precedent creating a constitutional right of personal privacy. He goes through various cases establishing precedent/relying on precedent, and how their inapplicable to what makes abortion distinct: they don't involve potential life. So you'll have to explain to me why he went through pains to speak to privacy, tell why precedent doesn't apply to the topic of the case, and somehow still be saying there's no right to privacy.

Maybe you're a bit further than I am, but all I saw was citing of Obergefell and how it was different (solicitor general was the one making case that others would fall from overruling a due process-related precedent) than the case at hand.

[Teriz]

Anyone who has studied abortion in the US prior to the Roe V Wade decision knows that this will not decrease the number of abortions by a lot, instead, it will make abortions a lot more dangerous for women of limited means. Wealthy women will still be able to get abortions if they want, but middle, working, and poor women will have to find alternative means that can endanger their lives.

We're marching towards a very dark time. And yeah, Gay and trans rights are next on the chopping block.

[Crissi]

@tehdang (not quoting that entire monster post) Except denying people of different races from marrying because of wanting to preserve purity is by definition bigoted, dude. SStrict interpretationism tends to result in that, because many rights that ensure we dont treat others like shit based on how they;re born arent defined in the constitution, because at the fucming time the founders thought said people were lesser. Same with gay marriage, which Alito explicitly targeted.

[eschatological]

Alito writes on what went into precedent creating a constitutional right of personal privacy. He goes through various cases establishing precedent/relying on precedent, and how their inapplicable to what makes abortion distinct: they don't involve potential life. So you'll have to explain to me why he went through pains to speak to privacy, tell why precedent doesn't apply to the topic of the case, and somehow still be saying there's no right to privacy.

Maybe you're a bit further than I am, but all I saw was citing of Obergefell and how it was different (solicitor general was the one making case that others would fall from overruling a due process-related precedent) than the case at hand.

The "potential life" argument is also bullshit, because it's, at its base, a religious argument, which has no place in our jurisprudence.

What isn't up for argument is that it involves the private life of a woman, who does have that right to privacy. Just like gay men, and interracial couples.

[zorkuus]

Don't give them ideas please. Nutcases will fully run with those sorta ideas.

I just want to hear how this works. If they are so keen on making it illegal then clearly it must be enforceable somehow.

[Dontrike]

Once again Republicans believe that certain people are not people, but unborn babies are golden idols that must be protected for some reason.

Hmm? People have asked all kinds of things about what I think on policy/policies.

And almost all of your opinions and views are between terrible and just plain wrong. This is just another example of that.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Viability has always been the definition of where the line is. The vast majority of people dont approve of past 20 weeks except for risk of mother's life anyway.

gonna need a source on that "vast majority"

Cuz my source says different:

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction....n/20-week-bans

20-week abortion bans are also highly unpopular throughout the country. 61% of all voters say abortion should be legal after 20 weeks.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

And what happens to these girls/women when they leave their anti-abortion states to get an abortion where it’s legal? Are they imprisoned when they return?

I mean, it's hard to say what will happen in all cases... but there are definitely some that would want to see your daughters on trial for first-degree murder.

[Crissi]

gonna need a source on that "vast majority"

Cuz my source says different:

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction....n/20-week-bans

ok, I seem to be wrong, but my question is that because it includes medically necessary, or do poeple actually think its fine to abort a 30 week old fetus?

because the later is ew

[Teriz]

And what happens to these girls/women when they leave their anti-abortion states to get an abortion where it’s legal? Are they imprisoned when they return?

I’m honestly sitting here, in fear for my daughters.

There are multiple laws being discussed in several red states that would punish people with fines and jail-time for leaving the state to get an abortion. Shit is absolutely bonkers, and incredibly anti-democratic.

As someone in an interracial marriage, I'm not sitting easy tonight.