Topic: [report]Rov V Wade overturned[confirmed] - page 3. (Read 843 times)

So someone that is involved in a motor vehicle accident and becomes braindead ceases to be human and merely becomes a clump of cells and tissues from that point? Human life begins at conception, scientifically indisputable. You might assign value to human life at cortex formation, just like pro-lifers might assign value to human life at conception. Whether the tragedy of aborting a zygote exists or not, the tragedy of aborting a fetus with any brain development surely exists. Any perceptible changes in development just become clearer as development goes on.


Damn right wingers, already rioting.

https://www.foxla.com/news/lapd-officer-hurt-downtown-la

Hopefully it isn't as bad as the 2020 Summer of Love.

https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html


If a parent, man or woman, decides they don't want a child 1 month into it's life citing they're "unwanted" or that raising a child might be "lengthy," would it be acceptable for that man or woman to end the child's life for their own convenience?

I'm rather indifferent on abortion because we assign arbitrary value to people's lives all the time, and that includes the unborn. The pro-choice crowd doesn't use the appropriate argument by circling around the central issue of ending human life based on convenience. Really, convenience should not even enter the conversation.

Bill Clinton was the last sensible pro-abortion politician that coined "safe, legal, and rare." He attached morality to the issue. Now, it's supposed to be empowering.

I think "pro-abortion" is a deliberately misleading and emotive title. In an ideal world there would be zero abortions - everyone agrees on that. But removing bodily autonomy and forcing unwanted pregnancies on women and families is not a price worth paying.

Except lawmakers don't believe that. They are quite happy to get abortions themselves or for their mistresses while trying to limit everyone else's rights.

If they did truly believe that all life was sacrosanct, then they would be up in arms about the millions of children we have living in poverty, about our crumbling foster care system, about our horrendous healthcare system. But they aren't. They play on the "abortion is murder" nonsense because it easy to rally people to that cause, not because it is true or because they believe it.

The cortex does not develop until between 24 and 26 weeks (the lower range of which also happens to be the limit of viability). The cortex is responsible for consciousness, for thought, for feeling, for sensation, for pain. Without a cortex, none of these things are possible. Therefore, before 24 weeks, you do not have a life, but simply a collection of cells and tissues.

Pointing to individual stories is not that useful; you can find a single story to back up pretty much any stance you want to take. Better to look at the data. The data show, unequivocally, that banning abortion does not stop abortions. Every society which has banned abortions still has abortions, particularly for the rich and powerful. All it does is push the average person from hospitals and clinics to kitchens and back alleys, increase the likelihood of complications, and increase the likelihood of death of the women and girls involved - girls as young as 11 or 12.

Yeah, it isn't the left who bomb Planned Parenthoods and shoot doctors, so you can save your faux outrage.

Talking about organs, I'll quote myself:

As of when the opinion was drafted (in February), it is likely the majority was intending on overturning Roe. Obviously, the leaking of the draft opinion (along with what is very likely to be future violence on the part of the left) is intended to intimidate the justices into changing their votes. It is not uncommon for justices to change their mind about a particular vote after reading the opinions of the opposing side.

I find this argument to be bogus. Healthcare is fairly heavily regulated by the government, and the government has made illegal various procedures, such as those required for organ harvesting/trading, and assisted suicide.

Although I am generally in favor of a free market, I don't believe there is any tangible benefit to society to allowing the selling of organs.

There are other regulations with regards to healthcare that are a net positive to society (granted, there are some regulations that are a net negative).

I think it is best to allow voters to decide the level of regulation that abortions should be subjected to. If the will of the people is to say that abortions should (or shouldn't) be subjected to particular regulations, I think it is difficult to argue that the contrary should be enforced.

Further, the government (via the will of the people) has outlawed various acts, even when said acts occur in one's home. For example, it is illegal to murder someone in your own home, as well as in your place of business.

Democrats will falsely equate Roe being overturned with abortion being outlawed and will use their various propaganda outlets to repeat this falsehood. They will use this propaganda, to motivate their low/no information voters to vote in higher numbers.

Pregnancy and giving birth is not "nothing". Both pregnancy and abortion have health implications. It's a health issue that should have never become a political issue, or a "father/family/community" issue.


Neither forced abortion nor forced pregnancy should ever be an option worth discussing.

If your family/community will "shun/exile/disown" you for having or not having an abortion, you need to find a better family/community.

Abortion is a medical procedure, like a root canal treatment.

If the Feds leave it up to the states, there will always be a place in the US where one can go to get it done.

If your state outright bans it, well, you need to move to another state (New Mexico) to get it done.

All this noise about abortion is pointless.

Grow up people, we have much bigger problems in the world.

Overpopulation, energy/food security, and environmental degradation to name a few.

Doing something quite complicated, and possibly even quite mischievously/forcefully given your last post, VS doing nothing and at the very most stopping something very complicated or mischievous/forceful from happening..

I'm thinking a forced abortion is much less likely, and much more likely to be disagreed with by any/all..

What exactly do you need to seek a higher authority for (government)?

But the father (or the "community" etc) having a say the other way round isn't a stretch?

Hmmm...
Having/causing an aborton against the mothers will..

Wonder in what ways this could be accomplished, and how those ways could possibly be acceptable by any of either of their communities/families..

Far stretch..

What if the father wants the abortion and the woman doesn't? Who's "facing the consequences" then in this medieval scenario?

Just another example of the government sticking their nose into everything..

Do you believe that abortion is not murder, and so does your family/community believe it is acceptable and therefore will not shun you?
Have you abortion..

Does your family/community think abortion is murder? Would they shun/exile/disown you?
Have you abortion if you want and face the consequences.. Right to association..


What about the father?
Does he agree that an abortion is acceptable? Fine..

Does he disagree? Face the consequences..
Who will disown you/exile you/shun you? Action VS reaction.. Play your cards..

Does the father believe that abortion is murder and therefore will murder you for murdering his son?
Can you defend yourself? Will your family/group defend you from his?
What's the likely outcome? Play your cards as you will.. What's it worth to you?

Government doesn't have to have shit to do with it.. Let the people effected sort it out..

In the end, this will further widen the social divide between the haves (have enough for a ticket plane to a pro-choice state) and the have nots (have not enough to get it done legally) and will also increase the number of "unwanted" children that directly correlate to the dysfunctionality in families, drug abuse, school dropping numbers and many other issues.

If you consider the situation on the ground as opposed to the moral and legal stances on which the ruling is made, the net effect cannot possibly do any good and the effects will be felt long time. In my view, a clear step back.

Abortion is a moral grey area. It seems natural that the mother should have options at least during the first six weeks, as one would argue that there is not real brain activity in the fetus, but just a mere biological process without a conscience or human activity as I understand it. The state should have no say on how and why the mother may choose not to be a mother.

I am worried for the effect that may have in the trends in other parts of the world, as the US tends to create trends on social issues discussions and it is certainly not the only country with religiously motivated conservatives.

Taking the localism issue in isolation: The less power any particular government has, the less total harm any one of them can do, and the less incentive there is for outside forces to corrupt the governments. But because we're talking about a prohibition on any government creating a bad law, rather than the creation of some federal law/program, I do find the argument against localism somewhat appealing here. Would I support restricting the 1st or 2nd amendments (which I unreservedly support) to only federal laws rather than federal+local laws? I think that I would in fact support limiting the scope of the 1st or 2nd amendments in this way, as it would reduce the scope of the federal government's power, though when I consider this isolated, extreme example, it makes me a lot less comfortable.

On the abortion issue in particular, I'm even more happy with localism because there is never going to be anything approaching a nationwide consensus on the abortion issue, so localism here gives people an opportunity to vote with their feet.

Your "between doctor and patient" point is why I said in my previous post that pro-abortion people are bad at messaging. That comes across as being utterly dismissive toward an act that anti-abortion people honestly see as downright murder. You are never in a million years going to convince anyone with that sort of messaging. If you want to be more effective at convincing people, you should drop the "just a medical choice like any other" language and instead:
 - Give arguments for why abortion is not murder even in the 2nd trimester (eg. data on brain development).
 - Point out that if anti-abortion people actually believe abortion is murder, then it makes no sense to allow abortions in case of rape or incest, which are overwhelmingly seen in polling as acceptable situations for abortions.
 - Give stories of people whose lives were in some way saved from tragedy because they could have an abortion.
 - Give stories of people who died or whose lives were ruined because they were prevented from having an abortion.

Abortions aren't contagious.

Just like that, they switched to my body my choice. Do you have to be vaccinated to enter this debate? At this point I’m pretty sure politicians are just fucking with us to see how stupid they can make society look. Do you think we can make the same people who wanted to keep unvaccinated from participating in society suddenly switch their view and take the exact opposite stance? Bonus points if you can make them put the lives of the elderly before infants. There is such a huge intelligence gap between society and common sense, I’m fairly certain I’m living in the Idiocracy timeline, and I’m the only one who doesn’t visit Starbucks.

The way I see it, abolishing Roe would insert many local and state governments in to what should be an issue between doctor and patient and have no government involvement whatsoever.

I'm not sure that the draft is actually at all indicative of the final decision. It'd be very natural for one of the conservative justices to write a draft where they imagine a "dream decision" where they get exactly what they want using exactly the justification they want. The liberal justices probably also have drafts which they've been working on for years where they get exactly what they want. The leaked draft does have 5 names attached, but that part could very easily be faked.

I don't have a very strong opinion on this issue one way or the other. I'm opposed to abortion, but I'm not sure if my idea of utopia would have any legal barriers to abortion.

Legally:
As I understand it, Roe v. Wade was based primarily on the argument that prior to the third trimester, the 14th amendment's right to privacy prohibits any government in the US from interfering with the mother's personal health decision. What I like about this argument is that I like the court interpreting the 14th amendment very broadly. You really should be able to use the same argument to fight against drug laws, vaccine mandates, etc. The existence of this contradiction between Roe v. Wade and many non-abortion-related anti-personal-freedom laws could be used to weaken those latter laws, which would be good in my book.

What I don't like about Roe v. Wade is that it inserts the federal government into what was previously a local issue, and I prefer localism. The trimester system is also obviously completely arbitrary. The court decided that the fetus is basically just a part of the mother's body before the third trimester, with zero personhood. I hate these sorts of arbitrary lines which nobody will ever agree on. Conservatives believe that Roe allows for murder, and some liberals think that Roe didn't go far enough, allowing mothers' rights to be infringed via abortion restrictions in the third trimester.

Politically:
The Democrats were always going to use this as a campaign tool. Since everything else is going so poorly for them, this is about the only thing they have. I hope you all like this issue, because we're going to be hearing about abortion 24/7 until November.

Polls have shown two contradictory things:
 - The majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe.
 - The majority of Americans support certain restrictions on abortions which would be prohibited by Roe. (For example, "Do you support banning abortions once the fetus has a heartbeat," and many similar questions like that.)

This shows that Americans don't actually understand what Roe is. The abortion debate will therefore primarily be a battle of defining what the Court actually did. Are they an extremist court who have overturned a long-standing status quo that we've all lived with for decades? Or have they just allowed common-sense restrictions on abortions - restrictions which the majority of Americans believe in? There's a lot of room for either side to succeed or fail on their messaging here. My perception is that the pro-abortion side has historically been worse at messaging, but that may be because I am mildly anti-abortion.

Democrats hope that this will turn things around for them, but abortion usually scores pretty low on polls of top issues among voters, and it's a more important issue for Republicans than Democrats. On the other hand, abortion tends to be a more important issue for the key suburban-women demographic, and this might be the "something, anything" that will get the Democratic base to turn out.

My guess is that this will be a noisy issue, but it won't actually have a big effect in elections.

Not at all surprising given the right's movements over the last few years, but still remains incredibly stupid and disappointing.

This is throwing out your right to privacy. This should be an affront to everyone. If you throw out the 14th Amendment for Roe, then you can also throw out the 14th Amendment for Obergefell, Griswold, and Lawrence for starters.

Whatever happened to small government? Land of the free? Lol. Republicans won't be happy until they have control over every aspect of your life.

According to recent unconfirmed reports, including a reported draft opinion of the US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned by the US Supreme Court.

If the above is correct, abortion will be regulated by the various states, and in most states, abortion will not be illegal in all circumstances.

It appears that the SCOTUS correctly recognizes that there is no basis to say that the "right to get an abortion" is enumerated in the Constitution, and as such, the ability to regulate abortion is reserved to the various states.

---

What do you think? Is there any basis in the US constitution to suggest that the right to an abortion is guaranteed in the Constitution? If true, is the above ruling consistent with the Constitution?