Topic: [report]Rov V Wade overturned[confirmed] (Read 843 times)

To be expected, since you barely acknowledge any truth at all.

Absolutely none of that is true.

The main abortion point is this. Nobody knows for a fact when the new life should/can be considered to be a living being... its own human being. All of it is guesses or guestimations.

Let's guess on the side of safety, like all conceptions are new people. Abortion might be murder, even if it isn't known to be murder. Murder by guessing? That's the way it might be. Let's be safe and for sure do no murder. Do no abortion.

Do you see how abortion is becoming euthanization? There are States that allow abortion after birth... at least one of them up to a week after. What next? A year after? Ten years after? Anybody over 50-y-o? Legalized 'jump a person, drag him into an alley, and kill him'?

Well, that didn't take long: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/republicans-move-to-ban-abortion-nationwide

Wonder what happened to all the "Abortion is an issue for the states" nonsense which was being parroted just a few months ago? This was the very obvious next step. Party of small government? Party of individual liberty? Don't make me laugh.

I doubt it. It's the "moderates" that were and still are cheering the SC majority and everything that it entails. That's how Trump got elected despite being disliked as a person by a significant number of Republicans (evangelicals et al). I also don't see any particular aversion to a dictatorship, as long as it's the "right" one.

As for the abortion ruling...


She "misspoke" LOL. They aren't even trying anymore.

The Trumpublicans consider this a victory, after many years of preparation, yet however I think the are miss-reading a large part of their supporting basis. True that there are many Christian fundamentalists in the ranks, but I hope that there is still some sense in the moderate Republicans to understand that, despite the hate that Democrats may inspire them, they are not choosing the next president, but how is the US going to be ruled and if there is going to be a Rule of Law or the dawning of a Dictatorship.

The US citizens have no experience of a dictatorship or of a subversion of the will of the people. They may not be aware of how real this can be and how easy is to excite the ignorant and the ignored, all the leftovers of  the system and the rejects from public schools and create a permanent regime change.

But anyway, the Trumpublicans got the plan B: Choosing the right "secretaries of state" that will simply not accept a Democrats victory no-matter-what. That is like the back-up plan... just in case. Trying to replicate the ridiculous argument that "the Vice President" may choose not to accept the victory of a candidates, now they will press in each state for the results not to be certified. Does anyone out there believe that the constitution or any law does actually give powers to individuals to ignore the results of an election? Yes. Him. You know who.

The US is dangerously close to making the constitution be toilet paper and becoming an Empire - except that Donald Grump is not even nearly as bright as was Julius Caesar.

No no no, you've got it all wrong. It's freedom of religion, provided the religion is Christianity, and one of the specific branches of Christianity that Republicans like. Otherwise fuck you.

In yet another 6-3 Supreme Court ruling yesterday, they have again overturned decades of precedent to state that it is fine for public officials to coerce others to pray. I'm absolutely certain they would have ruled the same way if a Muslim official whipped out a prayer rug and tried to lead the team in salah.

You seem to be so full of war-mongering rage all the time. Doesn't it give you heartburn when you eat a meal?


As in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when civilians support their government, they are going to get blasted some of the time. Russia isn't trying to kill civilians in Ukraine. Some of the civilians living there are Russians! Accidents happen in police actions between nations.

Russia's military moves were/are a form of self defense. Reasons are:
1. Nobody likes NAZIs except NAZIs. And too many weak-minded Ukrainians are falling for their NAZI government just like weak-minded Germans fell for Hitler's Nazism. Russia is attempting to save Ukrainians from Nazism while protecting themselves from it, as well;
2. We all know the NATO reasons why Russia is acting as it is;
3. Then there are the at least 46 Wuhan-style research labs in the Ukraine, that Russia shut down. That's a good idea, because the labs were working viral warfare, right on Russia's borders. However, as in Wuhan, the viruses created could spread death around the world. So, Russia is actually protecting the people of the nations that are sanctioning them... Ukrainians, as well.

If these 3 things were never done in Ukraine, Russia would have "conquered" Ukraine through friendly trade as it has done for years since the USSR fall. And the Ukraine would have "conquered" Russia in the same way.

As it is, if Ukraine willingly got rid of Nazism today, and kicked the US out, Russia's policing activities would keep the Russian military in that country long enough to be sure that the Ukraine government wasn't lying.


As far as doctors go, they have misplaced their sacred trust. They allow their leaders to feed them BS-medicine that harms people rather than does them good... especially in the Covid vaxxes. If they won't find the truth in medicine, or at least stop being doctors, they should be prosecuted.

Is burning witches something that you want to do?

Gays should be banned, at least into their own fenced-off areas... something like nudist camps. We don't want our children turning to their corruption.


I haven't looked at every writing of the founding fathers of the US. But religion in all the writings I have seen meant God worship to them, and never Satan worship. I think many of us would be interested if you could reference a founding-father writing that showed that freedom of religion included Satanism, where it was literarily so written.

It means exactly that. I despise much more Christian fundamentalists than the chaps of Satan's church. The extremists are actually the ones that deny other the right to think, live or act differently because one of the basis of their religion is precise to not respect others because anything that is not their way is by definition "a wrong way".

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-protest-satanic-temples-3-day-satancon-in-arizona.html

Kill the doctors, burn the witches, ban the gays...

You are a work of art - on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine thread you are defending the killing of Ukrainian civilians and here you are giving moral lessons.

While many of us interpret the Constitution and early laws to mean this or that, nobody really knows what was meant until he digs into the understanding of the definitions of the words used. And he has to understand them according to the way the words were used at the time of their writing.

For example, freedom of religion didn't mean freedom to have a Satan religion... back at the time the Bill of Rights was written. When judges make a legal decision, and someone doesn't like it, he needs to hold the judges accountable to the "statements of fact, and conclusions of law" whereby the judges made their decision. Judges can't simply make decisions up out of the air, like a king might in his kingdom.

However, anybody can do anything he wants and get away with it, if he is not held accountable by other people. Judges can be sued successfully, if done the right way.

The 15th Amendment says nothing about marriage, and the 14th Amendment protects it in the exact same way it protected abortion. If your argument is that Roe should be thrown out on these grounds, then you are also arguing that Loving should be thrown out on the exact same grounds. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Yet. But Thomas was already explicitly clear in his statement that he has his eyes on Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell next.

So every ruling by multiple different Supreme Courts made up of many different justices which confirmed Roe or based other rulings on Roe were all wrong? But now that this religiously driven and non-impartial court have decided to overturn it, they are ones who got it right? Confirmation bias much?

Let's have the Satanic Temple open a school there and see just how quickly they get discriminated against.

Interracial marriage is protected by the 14th and 15th amendments.

Further, courts, including the Supreme Court, only rule on actual controversies, and I am unaware of any serious attempts to make either contraception, nor interracial marriage illegal.
I am not aware of any arguments saying that Roe was correctly decided, the arguments that I have heard have been that the ability of states to regulate abortions is a bad thing.

The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot discriminate against religious schools when funding schools.

We already have the 9th and the 14th, which protect rights such as abortion (or at least, used to, until this religiously drive court allowed personal opinions to take priority over impartiality). It is nonsensical to suggest an individual amendment for every single specific right.

You think it is? Show me where. This is why we needed rulings like Loving, which interestingly Thomas left out of his crosshairs despite being based on the exact same reasoning as Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. I wonder why?

As I said above, it is (or rather now, should be) protected by the 9th and 14th Amendments.

If you want to say that any right which did not exist in 18th century Philadelphia is not worth having, then go ahead. But at least be honest that you have no issue with stripping vast numbers of rights away from vast numbers of people.

Don't forget the Supreme Court also ruled this week that public money can be handed to religious schools. What happened to separation of church and state? (Note that this ruling, the gun ruling I linked to on the last page, and the Roe ruling were all split in the exact same 6-3 way. Anyone else see a pattern emerging here?)

Working as intended. All the evidence from around the world shows that outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortion, and countries with restrictive abortion laws have similar rates of abortion to countries with legal abortion. The only thing that changes is the safety of those abortions. Republican senators will still be able to afford for their mistresses to get safe abortions, and they don't care in the slightest about poor people.

Turns out the ones that bleat the loudest about freedom are the first to deny freedom to others.  Not content unless they're oppressing someone.  Yet they somehow don't see the hypocrisy.  Claiming themselves the "land of the free" in one breath and then denying rights like a bunch of dogmatic fundamentalist extremists in the next.  Disgusting.

No type of marriage is included in the constitution. 

It is correct and quite surprising. The Christian conservative movement in the US is really strong and, in my view, little more civilised than other fundamentalists across the world. If they were Muslims, the females of Texas would be wearing a Burka.

Trump needs those votes - living on the conspiracy theorists, the Qanons of this world and the Oil lobby is not enough to win an election and he has not been able con consummate his last coup-d'etat. He had the luck of choosing three members of the SCOTUS and, as usual, had no filter nor any intent to govern with equanimity, and chose those who would deliver this political objective to him.

All that is just politics and usually would be just part of the great game, but this time is going to affect the most deprived sectors of the population, and, as I said before, it will tell the "haves" (have enough for a plane ticket to another state) and the "have nots" - have not other option than risking their lives in a dark alley getting a hanger inserted into their vaginas or live with a bad decision for the rest of their lives.

Would forceps and suction devices make you feel better about this? Is that better structured in reality?


You can make a constitutional amendment if you'd like. You have over two dozen of them.


You think interracial marriage isn't included in the constitution?


Where is abortion outlined in the constitution? Why are so many constitutional scholars in agreement that Roe was bad law?

And does this change the fact that the blue states will allow full access to abortion? You might worry about abortion rights when it's outlawed in blue states. It won't be.

I mean, they absolutely do, we just give them drugs to mitigate that pain. A 20 week old fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain because the required neuronal structures have not yet developed.

Sure. No emotion. As you talk about poking brains with sticks, as if that is in any way whatsoever based in reality.

And this ruling won't make abortion any rarer, just a whole lot more dangerous.

So anything which didn't exist in Philadelphia, 1787, shouldn't be protected?

The 9th Amendment? The 14th Amendment? Or are we fine going after everything from contraception to interracial marriage now because these things aren't explicitly spelt out in the Constitution?

True textualism there - selectively pick the bits of the text which suit your agenda. Guess they've got plenty of practice with that after doing it with the Bible for so many years.

the trimester system is a valid system as it has 3 phases that fit actual biology and science

the first 12 weeks(3months) first trimester is where a pregnancy is most likely to not progress into an actual birth. the miscarriage rate is high in the first trimester. the risk of fetal abnormalities occur mostly in this trimester, its why women dont like to tell alot of people they are pregnant until they get passed this risky timeperiod threshold.

the start of the 3rd trimester is the point at which the fetus, if born prematurely or via emergency c-section has a chance of survival.. where as before this point it is considered not viable to survive outside the mother.

so upto the point of the end of the second trimester means the mother is in full control of the life support of the fetus, where there is no independence of the fetus without the mother. the mother is in full authority of the life support.. because SHE IS THE LIFE SUPPORT...
and just like being a medical proxy/next of kin for someone in a coma on machine life support ventilator, the family with the power of medical decisions about interventions or DNR has the power to choose what is right or best on behalf of those on life support where they wont survive without that particular life support

its her body, her decision.
after the third trimester. there could be options of c-section then put it up for adoption or continue pregnancy and put up for adoption..
but that option is not available in the first 6 months. the only option is abortion if she chooses that she doesnt want her body to have a baby (for many reasons)

its not murder if the fetus wouldnt live without the mother anyway.
just like DNR and switching off mechanical life support machines is not murder for people that are in coma/brain dead


poled with a stick?.?.? are you a time traveller from the Victorian age where you hear about the 'back room' abortions woman go to because they lack having a proper medical assistance so try to perform it themselves with a friend that found a random stick?..

i hope you do realise what modern abortions are compared to your Victorian views..
let me guess you think appendix surgery is done with pair of rusty scissors and a coat hanger too

i guarantee you, that no modern abortions performed by a doctor trained in abortions is done with a stick

A patient under anesthesia doesn't feel pain either. Does it make it a tragedy if their brain were poked with a stick for the sake of ceasing life? I don't have to use any emotion when talking about abortion, the practice is barbaric when dealing with a developed fetus. Abortion zygotes aren't much of a tragedy but maybe in retrospect folks will look back and realize abortion isn't as liberating as they once thought it was. I'm hoping it will go out of style and revert back to "safe, legal, and rare."


There is a right to keep guns in the U.S. I don't see a right for abortion anywhere in the constitution.


They can call for whatever they want. Republicans are celebrating but this will set them back in midterms a bit. Let them celebrate, who cares? Abortion is and will be a state issue. Abortion in the U.S. is not banned. I don't think it should be either. If Californians want to abort 9 month old fetuses, I suppose that's within the purview of their electorate. Either way, bad law is bad law. Hard to find any legitimate constitutional scholar that can find abortion within the text of the constitution.


Seems to me the legal analysis of any document, by a prudent person (few of those folks left in the court system these days) would be from a textualist interpretation. That way, as Justice Scalia once said (I quote him loosely), you don't need to wake up one day and look to the sky to determine if the death penalty is constitutional or not. Clarence Thomas is doing a better job at sticking to the text of the constitution despite what his religions beliefs might be.

And of course, Western foundational values are religious in nature, Judeo Christian values are long withstanding. So to your point, there could be a religious bent to all of this. But not under the name of God, under Judeo Christian values.

According to NYTimes it's more than that.

Yes, far better to reduce the bodily autonomy of half the population to less than that of a corpse. (Glossing over your very transparent appeal to emotion and the fact that a fetus at 20 weeks does not have a brain which is capable of consciousness, feeling, thought, or pain.)

So I'm sure you'll agree it is equally wrong of the Supreme Court to over rule local governments on other contentious issues like gun control? And that this ruling just yesterday was therefore obviously wrong?

Right, because this was definitely only about overturning a bad law. That's why many Republicans are now coming out and calling for nationwide bans.

And you see no issue with a biased and religiously driven Supreme Court overturning decades of precedent because of individual political leanings?

In the words of the dissent:

5 states (TX, OK, LA, KY, SD) already have. There are at least 8 more (ID, UT, WY, ND, MO, AR, MS, TN) which will do at some point over the next 30 days. That's already a quarter of states and the ruling is only a few hours old.

Pretty fucked up path we seem to be going down. 

Clarence "MAGA" Thomas is all but begging to be given the chance to abolish more rights like same sex marriage, same sex sex, and the right to contraception in his concurring opinion.

This is a victory for the conservatives and religious right groups after about 50 years of legal war. This ruling was orchestrated by Donald Trump when he nominated three conservative justices (Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) to the Supreme Court. This judgment has triggered massive protest in different states in the US but its game over. But pro-abortion groups would keep fighting for their course through other legal options available. But this landmark ruling would really affect mostly poor Americans that might not be able to afford transport and other expenses to abortion friendly states.

The leaked draft was, in fact accurate, and Row was overturned today.

The question of abortion's legality will go back to the states.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of abortions (~92%) occur in the first trimester (12 weeks), and I don't think many states will ban abortions this early. Presumably, most of the remaining 8% will happen earlier.

God forbid a "clump of cells" at 20 weeks can't be sucked out of a vacuum and have its brains poked out with a stick anymore in some states. California and New York will be systematically ramping up abortions, don't worry. It's not gone.

For a country of 300+ million, a contentious issue like abortion should've just gone to the local government in the first place. Roe v. Wade was bad law, from one the liberal justices herself - https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

One of the issues with liberal interpretation of constitutional text is that you get to legislate from the judicial system, law be damned.

Well, I called it:


These are the laws allowing access to contraception and same sex relationships and marriage. Republicans just won't be happy until they have cameras in your bedroom and control over every aspect of your lives.

What a tragic day for America, Americans, and women everywhere.

The argument you made was "The US is one of only three countries that allow for abortions past 24 weeks", which I have proven is incorrect. Further, if you now want to make the argument that (some states in) the US, China and North Korea are the only places which allow for elective abortion past 24 weeks, then that is incorrect too, as you can see from the quote I provided above for Canada.

And again, the argument you made was that you "really don't see any valid argument as to why late-term abortions should be allowed". I provided a valid argument. Of course they are edge cases: Global data show that somewhere around 1% of abortions take place beyond 20 weeks and fewer than 0.1% beyond 24 weeks.

Sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment, but regardless, here is the only passage in which the Bible actually mentions abortion:
So far from condemning or banning abortion, the Bible recommends it if the woman has been unfaithful.

All of the examples you cite allow for abortions in only limited circumstances. In the US, it is possible to have abortions for elective reasons. The two are not comparable.

You are referring to edge cases. Most late-term abortions do not meet this criteria. I also understand that there was language inserted into the bill that recently failed in the Senate that used "health complications" as a loophole that would effectively legalize abortions up to the moment of birth for elective reasons.

Any exception that allows for late-term abortions would need to meet a very high standard, such as the requirement that new information was discovered that was impossible to have been known prior to the threshold cutoff, and there being a substantial risk to the lift of the mother.

As a moral issue, performing a late-term abortion because there is a risk of health complication for the mother is doing something that is guaranteed to end a baby's life that merely reduces the risk to the mother's life, when it was not certain that the mother was going to die from the pregnancy.

The constitution has a means to be amended if there is the will of the people to amend it. If there is insufficient voter support to amend the consitutition, the only reasonable conclusion is that the people who are governed by the constitution have not consented to changing the consitutition.

This is a controversial question. Though Countries differ and States have different opinions on the said Topic. Let me start from the Biblical Allusion.

I believe most of the articles, sections and sub-sections in the Constitution are from the HOLY BOOKS, THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN. And these Holy Books prohibit abortion, because God told Abraham to multiply the world. So in the process of the Multiplication, the population became increase and the Economic resources could not equally distributed to all the citizens. So to reduce the population is to tell the citizens to do abortion.

Even at this, US Constitution will not Force citizens to do abortion, but for willing people in the various States.

Aye, that's all well, and good. However, and this is where it becomes a little bit confusing, and there really in my opinion isn't a right answer, but what if you're using birth control, protection, but you don't want to permanently tie the tubes or cut the important parts? No contraception is 100% effective, meaning that there's a small chance you might fall pregnant, and while most contraception is effective in the >95% range, that 1-5% chance is actually very large when you consider the amount of people. According to this:
that's a huge figure, and even if you take in 1% of that figure, that's like hundreds of thousands of potential unwanted pregnancies. That's huge, and those people were taking responsibility, and trying to avoid it.

While, I will definitely admit this is a rather moral grey area, I do tend to go along the lines of  what o_e_l_e_o was alluding too , and when the conscious specifically develops. I'm most definitely pro choice, up until that point. That amount of time, is usually enough for people to get an abortion without too many issues. However, the issue which a lot of people don't talk about (mainly because it's a horrible thought) is those stuck in abusive relationships, which might not be able to get an appointment to actually get it done before then, which I don't know the answer too, but it's an horrible thought that this very likely is happening.

You could argue that there's a way to up that protection even further by both partners using protection, and taking medication i.e the women takes birth control, and the man uses a condom. That would effectively bring that protection level up, however there will still be instances of unwanted pregnancy, despite taking that due diligence.

Unless, you're insisting that those that don't want children, commit to a period of celibacy, which could very well bring up its own problems. I'll leave that for another day, though.

I could not have said it better. I mean, literally can't.

This is just not true. Most Western countries allow abortion beyond 24 weeks in specific circumstances. Here are a handful I know off the top of my head:

New Zealand:
So it's perfectly fine for a woman to die from health complications as a result of her pregnancy?

So if it didn't exist in Philadelphia, 1787, then it's fair game?

The US is one of only three countries that allow for abortions past 24 weeks. The other two countries are China and North Korea.

As a moral issue, I really don't see any valid argument as to why late-term abortions should be allowed (dito with post-birth abortions). I understand the argument for earlier term abortions, and in most places, the support for early-term abortions is likely strong enough such that early-term abortions will remain legal.

As a constitutional issue, there is no basis to guarantee the "right" to have an abortion. There is a litany of other issues that the states use their police powers to regulate regarding behaviors that people do in their own homes and what people do in their doctor's office.

I don't have a clear position on this either. I am an atheist, so the moral objections of religious type on this subject do not go with me and I do not agree that it is 100% a matter of "my body my choice" because if we consider that in your body you carry a life it is no longer a matter of your own.

I also see hypocrisy in this on the part of conservative and religious people, because they are against abortion but, historically, there have been quite a few cases where they took their daughter to have an abortion in a place where it was legal, or even illegal, for getting pregnant before marriage. And let alone if the one who got her pregnant was black or someone not well regarded in their social circle. All this while defending the prohibition of abortion. I guess they then go to mass, go to confession and feel free of sin.

What I think is clear is the crux of the matter is where human life begins, and there I think we will never reach a consensus, because I do not think there is a line where one second before we can say that there is no life and one second after that life has already begun.


Although the scientific definition is a good way to try to establish a criterion to decide whether it is a life or not, I don't think it is the solution either. The cortex will develop in those weeks but the consciousness of self, that I am here and I am something different from the rest, that I exist, does not appear until months after birth, and, on the other hand, what do we do with those who want to abort after the 27th week? Do we also prohibit it? I am thinking of a young girl who has not told her parents because of fear, shame, etc. Do we forbid it and if she has an abortion, do we call her a murderer? And the young girl is not the only case I could give as an example.


I don't think it's a straw man argument. I do believe that in the debate no one raises the question of killing a child once it is born, but there are radical feminist positions that defend that abortion should be free until an instant before birth, then, he speaks of one month, but I propose to consider the argument of one day: to kill a baby one day before birth is an abortion and one day after is a murder? I don't see a line there, as I said before, I see more of a continuum on which it will be difficult to agree.

very supportive if it is held in the United States against the Constitution, especially regarding abortion, the freedom of the population to do so is highly respected there, that position becomes a reference for free sex there, cohabiting, we remember what happened to Will Smith's family who put forward the wife in home,  Indeed, some countries strongly oppose this abortion because it is not in accordance with religious norms, morals, state regulations, but why not?

I know this is controversial, but for me the choice stops when you decide that is no longer a bunch of cells with no conscience and becomes a human. At that moment, it passes from being a health decision / convenient decision / means tested decision / psychological health decision to killing a human.

When that potential human being is a human being? Endless arguments have been out there for ages. An embryo for me is not yet a human, just a potential human that has not yet a conscience nor anything like it. After a few weeks, I would hesitate saying that is not a human being.

As for who takes de decision: The mother makes her decision. The father will have time to make his own decisions about life as well.

There is something that looks quite hypocrite in those jurisdictions that actually say "you cannot unless is rape, incest...". Either killing is a crime or it is not. It does not depend if you are killing a human on the basis on how was created. That is my argument for free decision within a period of time.

     Abortion is such a sensitive topic specially to the people that are morally seeing it as wrong. But in my opinion, people should be given the right to do what they want since it is their body. That is if the reasoning is indeed right. But then again, unborn children also has the right to be born. I really think it depends on the perspective and where the person grew up like the environment, tradition and culture they were exposed in as to how they may see this either wrong or right. Either way, I think that with a good reason, I think it should be allowed.

Posting in this thread is very scary because this topic is complicated, the analysis from both parties is very strong and the participants are my mentors. I have really learnt a lot from this topic that has really change my mentality. Please permit me to share my humble thoughts.

My partner had an unwanted pregnancy two years ago and we had two options: Abort or keep the foetus. My decision was that I need to take full responsibility for my actions and inactions. Although not convenient, we kept the child.

In my own perspective, apart from rape cases, ignorance, health issues and other situations that risks the life of the mother, every man or woman must learn how to take full responsibility for  their actions. If you don't want a baby then use pregnancy prevention medications or protections.  

If someone is diagnosed as brain dead, then both medically and legally they are dead. We can keep their heart beating for decades, but that doesn't make the person alive.

Simply not true. A single cell is not a human being.

Obviously not, and constructing such a ridiculous strawman only weakens your position.

It isn't a human life, but calling pregnancy and the process of giving birth, and all the risks, complications, costs, and implications which come with them an "inconvenience" is incredibly naive.

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?