SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

Also, everyone should be an organ donor by default now. Anything left of your corpse after all it's viable organs have been harvested should be donated to medical research.

Seriously, you don't need your corpse any longer. Unless you have religious reasons to preserve it, it could save potentially multiple lives and your healthy organs and tissue should be harvested because life is precious and sacred.

Now full disclosure: I'm very much an organ doner and need to get around to contacting some medical schools/research facilities to arrange donating whatever is left for research there (or a body farm to help investigators more accurately gauge times of death). I think everyone should be an organ donor unless they have faith-based objections to it (perfectly fine!).

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Child support should begin at conception! /s

Conception? why wait so long.

Child Support begins at penetration.

[Edge-]

Child support should begin at conception! /s

What if it's a stillbirth though? Is that unintentional homicide? Manslaughter? Miscarriage due to the mother smoking cigarettes would be what? Negligent homicide? We need to make sure the government restricts what women can do and consume during their pregnancies to protect the health of the zygote, apparently, since it's a person. So as soon as the woman learns she's pregnant, please show up to your local Government Reproductive Health Center to get your new "Bill of Rights" detailing exactly what you can and can't do, what you can and can't eat/drink, and other restrictions to your personal freedoms because you're no longer a person: You're two people.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

What if it's a stillbirth though? Is that unintentional homicide? Manslaughter? Miscarriage due to the mother smoking cigarettes would be what? Negligent homicide? We need to make sure the government restricts what women can do and consume during their pregnancies to protect the health of the zygote, apparently, since it's a person. So as soon as the woman learns she's pregnant, please show up to your local Government Reproductive Health Center to get your new "Bill of Rights" detailing exactly what you can and can't do, what you can and can't eat/drink, and other restrictions to your personal freedoms because you're no longer a person: You're two people.

Having sex with a pregnant women is statutory rape.

[Edge-]

Having sex with a pregnant women is statutory rape.

Ok fuck...yeah. And what if you're having sex with your pregnant wife and you have an accident that injures the zygote? Can the husband be charged with assault and battery? Would verbal threats against the unnamed zygote constitute assault?

If we're granting fetal personhood here, which it seems that Republicans want, that's a huge pandora's box of potential legal problems they need to resolve. Or will need to resolve through the courts and legislature as they come up.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Ok fuck...yeah. And what if you're having sex with your pregnant wife and you have an accident that injures the zygote? Can the husband be charged with assault and battery? Would verbal threats against the unnamed zygote constitute assault?

If we're granting fetal personhood here, which it seems that Republicans want, that's a huge pandora's box of potential legal problems they need to resolve. Or will need to resolve through the courts and legislature as they come up.

What about when one twin consumes the other in the womb? Is that child a murderer? Is the mother an accessory?

[Edge-]

What about when one twin consumes the other in the womb? Is that child a murderer? Is the mother an accessory?

Slap that baby in handcuffs the second it's outta the womb. None of this "being held in mommy and daddy's arms" bullshit, that's a stone-cold killer right there. Put that sucker in baby-jail, and look forward to a whole new industry of private-baby-prisons.

[D3thray]

What if it's a stillbirth though? Is that unintentional homicide? Manslaughter? Miscarriage due to the mother smoking cigarettes would be what? Negligent homicide? We need to make sure the government restricts what women can do and consume during their pregnancies to protect the health of the zygote, apparently, since it's a person. So as soon as the woman learns she's pregnant, please show up to your local Government Reproductive Health Center to get your new "Bill of Rights" detailing exactly what you can and can't do, what you can and can't eat/drink, and other restrictions to your personal freedoms because you're no longer a person: You're two people.

It’s like this with many laws though, they lack the granularity to account for reality. Even ones that should be simple like ‘don’t kill someone else’ have to account for self-defense, accidental death, or on topic killing a fetus. It’s why I’m against a lot of laws, either proposed or on the books, because of the likely hood, large or small, of injustice.

I’m not so naïve as to think human society can exist without a concept of law but I want more people to be aware of their shortcomings before they charge off on a crusade in support of or opposition to the cause du jure.

I guess I thought I’d highlight this since your reaction to proposals for abortion bans (that I similarly disagree with) is the same as I feel toward many laws.

[Edge-]

It’s like this with many laws though, they lack the granularity to account for reality. Even ones that should be simple like ‘don’t kill someone else’ have to account for self-defense, accidental death, or on topic killing a fetus. It’s why I’m against a lot of laws, either proposed or on the books, because of the likely hood, large or small, of injustice.

Not really, laws on murder etc. are actually fairly clear overall - the challenge comes in convincing a jury of peers that someone is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Also, "killing a fetus" is weird because the fetus literally can't survive without the host - you know, the woman with bodily autonomy. It's a pretty unique circumstance, and one that has an existing analog - braindead relatives. If your relative is on life support and braindead, the next-of-kin ultimately has legal authority over their healthcare (unless they have a healthcare directive stating otherwise). Because the person in question can't make decisions for themselves, similar to how a zygote isn't developed enough to make decisions, not to mention that parents have ultimate legal authority over their children in most instances.

Given this analog, it stands to reason that yes, much like the next of kin (or person stated in a health care directive) would have the ultimate authority to keep someone on life support (in the womb) or not, women should have ultimate authority over what happens to their bodies. Period.

I guess I thought I’d highlight this since your reaction to proposals for abortion bans (that I similarly disagree with) is the same as I feel toward many laws.

I mean, this says more about you and your ideology than it does about anything I've posted.

- - - Updated - - -

And for the political side of things - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...inst-rcna27418

In an emailed statement Wednesday, Scott told NBC News the NRSC has been polling and working with focus groups for “the last few months,” in an effort to bolster Republican candidates.

“No matter what the Supreme Court decides, what’s clear is that the Democrat Party is well outside the mainstream on the issue of abortion,” Scott said.

Note: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supr...ry?id=84468131

Amid reports of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that majorities of Americans support upholding Roe, say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and -- by a wide margin -- see abortion as a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor, not by lawmakers.

...

In this poll, by contrast, 57% of Americans oppose a ban after 15 weeks; 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases; and 54% say the court should uphold Roe, compared with 28% who say the ruling should be overturned.

Even with the 15 week ban, Democrats remain in the "mainstream" by being in lock-step with the majority of this country.

Once more, Democratic/liberal policies and bills are proving to be majority popular while Republican/conservative policies and bills prove to be majority unpopular. This is a historical trend that continues today.

[Edge-]

Not unlike a parasite. One that massively affects the host body, changing it, disrupting the host's health, even flexing control over the host's metabolism to its benefit.

Careful, you're opening yourself up for being called an inhuman monster for calling a fetus a "parasite", which is exactly the kind of talk that proves how evul those heartless libs are, or something.

As we lobby for better pre and postnatal care for women and more support (like the permanent child tax credit that was paying out monthly and lifting millions of families out of poverty) and Republicans balk at the notion of spending money to protect mothers and children.

It's weird, I still can't make sense of it without some doublethink plus good.

[Aphelios]

Wait is this still happening?

When old guys write laws about female autonomy when they have no understanding of female autonomy. There is a reason in medicine there are exclusive departments dedicated to female health compared to male. It's not even close.

Should I buy stock in back alleys and hangers?

[Darththeo]

I appreciate your viewpoint and your passion, but I do not think you'll change my mind, to me abortion is a form of murder, the deliberate destruction of human life, immature as it may be. No amount of talk about bodily autonomy will change that simple truth. And I really don't believe that the organ transplant analogy makes any sense, nobody wants to force people to donate organs against their will, people want to stop people from killing unborn children. And as I said previously forcing people to donate a kidney is not the same thing as stopping an abortion, since there is a difference between killing and not saving people. Another poster argued that an abortion is the same thing, i.e. choosing not to save the child. I disagree with that viewpoint strongly, you can't claim you're merely not saving a life when you are the direct cause of its death.

Also for what it's worth I think comparing people who disapprove of abortion to proponents of slavery does not serve your side well.

I am a supporter of a families right to choose the medical care for their family, within reason. You don't get to torture people with mental illnesses. If parents had a child who was currently only living on life support and there was not guarantee they could live without it, I fully support the parents right to pull the plug and let the child pass.

I support the Right to Die.

However, the organ donar IS a valid point, despite what you said. If the point is people have a right to life, which is an argument for banning abortion, that you choosing not to save someone is denying them their right to life.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait is this still happening?

When old guys write laws about female autonomy when they have no understanding of female autonomy. There is a reason in medicine there are exclusive departments dedicated to female health compared to male. It's not even close.

Should I buy stock in back alleys and hangers?

Currently, yes. And those old men all think the leak is a bigger issue.

[Rasulis]

Wait is this still happening?

When old guys write laws about female autonomy when they have no understanding of female autonomy. There is a reason in medicine there are exclusive departments dedicated to female health compared to male. It's not even close.

Should I buy stock in back alleys and hangers?

Unfortunately, we now have generic Misoprostol and Mifepristone. Otherwise, I would recommend investing in the company that makes those pills.

[PACOX]

flirting with forbidden topics but i think a lot of this is cause chaos among part of Biden's base. Most Conservatives are that make abortion a political platform are a particular brand c-word and really really don't like brand of c-word Biden is. They would even say Biden's brand of c-word is a cult. And yet many of their argument's for outlawing abortion come from the most radical interpretations of Biden's brand of c-word.

I'm thinking they want to cause discord amongst Biden's c-word base. Choose between your President, who has to at least remain neutral on the issue, or take the chance to turn your views into law. Just another way to chip away at Biden's support/voters for 2024 but reintroducing this wedge issue hard and fast. Next they are going to be gaslighting c-word people on the left/who voted for Biden on Biden's faith.

[Endus]

It’s like this with many laws though, they lack the granularity to account for reality.

Really not the case. This is a particular bit of lunacy that derives from the fact that pro-life arguments have no basis in either reason nor reality. They are nothing but pseudo-religious misogyny, and their sole purpose is the subjugation and marginalization of women. Literally nothing else.

[s_bushido]

flirting with forbidden topics but i think a lot of this is cause chaos among part of Biden's base. Most Conservatives are that make abortion a political platform are a particular brand c-word and really really don't like brand of c-word Biden is. They would even say Biden's brand of c-word is a cult. And yet many of their argument's for outlawing abortion come from the most radical interpretations of Biden's brand of c-word.

I'm thinking they want to cause discord amongst Biden's c-word base. Choose between your President, who has to at least remain neutral on the issue, or take the chance to turn your views into law. Just another way to chip away at Biden's support/voters for 2024 but reintroducing this wedge issue hard and fast. Next they are going to be gaslighting c-word people on the left/who voted for Biden on Biden's faith.

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...

[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.