SCOTUS Poised to Overturn Roe v Wade per leaked opinion

[Winehole23]

they were banking on the night of rage

[Thread]

Donald Trump's lasting legacy will now be the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 3:37 PM ET, Sat June 25, 2022



Nigh on a half-century & that old man rendered it null & void.

Trump President.
Not Clinton.

Roe is dead, Trump put it on-the-spot and killed it. No mistakes this time; he chose wisely, hitting each of the 3 like ringing a bell. Nobody faltered, or, turned him.

And late your side came hard; first with the leak and then late with the assassination attempt on Kavanaugh.

Trump did right.

"Easy to do justice. Hard to do right."

[Winehole23]

[Winehole23]

The Fugitive Slave Act is the obvious analogy

[Trill Clinton]

[koriwhat]

That's such a tough situation to deal with and amounts to less than 1% of abortions.

He's not wrong though, regardless of the situation, that life starts at conception. If we're going full ban across the board I think incest/rape, even though both are almost null in regard to stats on abortion, should be the exception as well as the mother's health.

Let's be real though. Most abortions are due to rejects ing without contraception which is widely available and easy to get. There shouldn't be any excuses tbh.

Plus, why all the outrage? I thought democracy was worth saving? You re s don't get separation of powers do you? Less federal overreach the better!

[koriwhat]

That's such a tough situation to deal with and amounts to less than 1% of abortions.

He's not wrong though, regardless of the situation, that life starts at conception. If we're going full ban across the board I think incest/rape, even though both are almost null in regard to stats on abortion, should be the exception as well as the mother's health.

Let's be real though. Most abortions are due to rejects ing without contraception which is widely available and easy to get. There shouldn't be any excuses tbh.

Plus, why all the outrage? I thought democracy was worth saving? You re s don't get separation of powers do you? Less federal overreach the better!

[spurraider21]

rape/incest exceptions are a red herring, and quite frankly not worth discussing

if you are someone who takes the pro-life position on the grounds that life starts at conception and you shouldnt punish the innocent life, then the cir stances of the pregnancy should have literally no bearing on this. even in the case of rape, the life began at conception, and its still an innocent life. why would you punish the innocent child by death for the crimes of its father? its a nonsensical position that people adopt in an effort to seem empathetic, but its entirely logically inconsistent

and pro choice people trying to advocate for women's rights should not be focusing significant energy/political capital to appeal to fringe cases that are going to impact a relatively small percentage of women who need their rights protected

[spurraider21]

if somebody claims that they dont oppose abortions because they want to control women's sexual lives, but then at the same time agree to grant exceptions in the case of rape "because in those cases she didnt choose to get pregnant" then you are actually just admitting that all you care about is limiting promiscuity, and its not really about muh babies. you just want to punish s.

[DMC]

if somebody claims that they dont oppose abortions because they want to control women's sexual lives, but then at the same time agree to grant exceptions in the case of rape "because in those cases she didnt choose to get pregnant" then you are actually just admitting that all you care about is limiting promiscuity, and its not really about muh babies. you just want to punish s.

Bifurcation at its finest.

So if you support abortions because you think women should have the say of what happens to their own bodies, but not after the the point where the baby could live outside the womb (like up till birth), then you're just admitting the fetus is alive the mother's body can wait. Otherwise you support aborting late term even on a fully heathy, ready to deliver fetus even after the water has broken.

See how that works?

[spurraider21]

Bifurcation at its finest.

So if you support abortions because you think women should have the say of what happens to their own bodies, but not after the the point where the baby could live outside the womb (like up till birth), then you're just admitting the fetus is alive the mother's body can wait. Otherwise you support aborting late term even on a fully heathy, ready to deliver fetus even after the water has broken.

See how that works?

i think the difference is that pro choice advocates recognize that there is a legitimate interest in the life of the child, but the question is at what point those interests are greater or less than the woman's.

unfortunatelythere is no golden tablet that tells us when life begins, or even more philosophically, when personhood begins. so there is a sliding scale of how much the woman's interest supersede the unborn's based on the timeline. before we had a trimester system. first trimester was more or less full deference to the mother. more room for limitations in the second trimester to protect the woman's health, and potentially even prohibiting third trimester abortions except in cases of the woman's health

we then shifted to a viability standard as opposed to trimesters because it allowed us to adjust those sliders based on the medical abilities of a given time.

the pro-choice position isnt founded on the concept that the zygote/embro/fetus literally doesnt matter. just that the woman's concerns trump them until the point of viability, generally.

otoh, the pro-life position is ostensibly more simple. that the life is sacred and the only thing that matters is protecting the unborn as it is innocent in all this. making an exception for rape has literally no logical connection. unless one's pro-life position was based on some traditional/religious view that women shouldnt be having casual sex

[Thread]

i think the difference is that pro choice advocates recognize that there is a legitimate interest in the life of the child, but the question is at what point those interests are greater or less than the woman's.

unfortunatelythere is no golden tablet that tells us when life begins, or even more philosophically, when personhood begins. so there is a sliding scale of how much the woman's interest supersede the unborn's based on the timeline. before we had a trimester system. first trimester was more or less full deference to the mother. more room for limitations in the second trimester to protect the woman's health, and potentially even prohibiting third trimester abortions except in cases of the woman's health

we then shifted to a viability standard as opposed to trimesters because it allowed us to adjust those sliders based on the medical abilities of a given time.

the pro-choice position isnt founded on the concept that the zygote/embro/fetus literally doesnt matter. just that the woman's concerns trump them until the point of viability, generally.

otoh, the pro-life position is ostensibly more simple. that the life is sacred and the only thing that matters is protecting the unborn as it is innocent in all this. making an exception for rape has literally no logical connection. unless one's pro-life position was based on some traditional/religious view that women shouldnt be having casual sex

Boiled down:::You want to kill babies for convenience sakePERIOD

[DMC]

i think the difference is that pro choice advocates recognize that there is a legitimate interest in the life of the child, but the question is at what point those interests are greater or less than the woman's.

The child? When does it become a child instead of a parasite, virus or otherwise? Whose interest? If there's a child, should there be the accepted notion that the child wants to live, vs the emotional comfort of the birthing parent? If so then life trumps comfort. At least you'd think.

unfortunately there is no golden tablet that tells us when life begins, or even more philosophically, when personhood begins. so there is a sliding scale of how much the woman's interest supersede the unborn's based on the timeline. before we had a trimester system. first trimester was more or less full deference to the mother. more room for limitations in the second trimester to protect the woman's health, and potentially even prohibiting third trimester abortions except in cases of the woman's health.

So then in the 3rd trimester the woman's choice isn't important any longer. Now there's a "life" inside of her that's not just a "clump of cells" and therefore given concern as a separate en y who had no choice but to be in that place at that time.

we then shifted to a viability standard as opposed to trimesters because it allowed us to adjust those sliders based on the medical abilities of a given time.

"we"? Do you mean the medical community or society as a whole?

the pro-choice position isnt founded on the concept that the zygote/embro/fetus literally doesnt matter. just that the woman's concerns trump them until the point of viability, generally.

But somehow the pro-life position is that women have no rights? It's not prochoice vs prolife. It's pro-choice vs anti-abortion. The ramifications of anti-abortion is pro-life, but the push isn't about whether or not women should have a right to choose. Certainly pro-choice folks don't think the woman should have a right to leave an infant in a hot car, even if she feels like the infant taxes her life too much and feels some moral shame over it because it came from an extramarital affair.

I think it eventually comes down to the fact that, regardless who is for or against it, the actual outcome, the only thing that will change, is the quality of heath and mental care the woman will receive during and after aborting. Her abortion cannot be stopped by legislation, she can still abort. She just won't have adequate medical care. So I think the conversation is framed wrongly based on non-involved onlookers arguing with each other instead of from a medical context. I mean, the woman could get medical assistance and rehab for consuming copious amounts of illegal drugs for years, but not for a decision she made while sober and of sound mind regarding her own body? Even if she cut herself in an attempt to suicide, she would receive medical attention.

otoh, the pro-life position is ostensibly more simple. that the life is sacred and the only thing that matters is protecting the unborn as it is innocent in all this. making an exception for rape has literally no logical connection. unless one's pro-life position was based on some traditional/religious view that women shouldnt be having casual sex

Fundamentalists do not make an exception for rape. Pregnant is pregnant, and the baby can always be put up for adoption. Emotional scarring can be salved by Jesus.

[spurraider21]

There are competing interests. Not a difficult concept

[Th'Pusher]

There are competing interests. Not a difficult concept

An indication SR21 is not interested in a 12 page rodeo with a pro choice poster advocating for a position he doesn’t actually support.

:popcorn

[ElNono]

if somebody claims that they dont oppose abortions because they want to control women's sexual lives, but then at the same time agree to grant exceptions in the case of rape "because in those cases she didnt choose to get pregnant" then you are actually just admitting that all you care about is limiting promiscuity, and its not really about muh babies. you just want to punish s.

Which would be pretty hilarious in the sense that the advice from those people generally is not to have sex if you don't want to get pregnant, while they believe in a religion where a woman didn't have sex but ended up pregnant anyways...

[HemisfairArena]

Its not rocket science and ive given this analogy before and you democrats cant answer it so you ignore it,,,responsibility is the key. If i drink alcohol,,,im expected to drink responsibly because my actions my harm myself or more importantly another person and if i drink and drive,,,im rolling the dice and if i harm another person im prosocuted,,,same should go for sex,,,,do it responsibly,,,you get pregnant,,,you dont get the luxury to kill an inconvenience in your belly just like a drinker doesnt get to kill a person on the road. Keep your legs closed if you cant practice safe sex,,,simple as that. Murder is no longer legal for you. Take the pill,,,get your tubes tied,,,make him wear a condon,,,,all proven effective ways to prevent pregnancy,,,democrats are trying to say i should be able to have sex without any prevention and if I get pregnant, I should have the right to kill it,,,bull ,,,,GFY.

[ElNono]

Its not rocket science and ive given this analogy before and you democrats cant answer it so you ignore it,,,responsibility is the key. If i drink alcohol,,,im expected to drink responsibly because my actions my harm myself or more importantly another person and if i drink and drive,,,im rolling the dice and if i harm another person im prosocuted,,,same should go for sex,,,,do it responsibly,,,you get pregnant,,,you dont get the luxury to kill an inconvenience in your belly just like a drinker doesnt get to kill a person on the road. Keep your legs closed if you cant practice safe sex,,,simple as that. Murder is no longer legal for you. Take the pill,,,get your tubes tied,,,make him wear a condon,,,,all proven effective ways to prevent pregnancy,,,democrats are trying to say i should be able to have sex without any prevention and if I get pregnant, I should have the right to kill it,,,bull ,,,,GFY.

Multiple answers to ^^^ this stupidity:

1) Doesn't apply to rape
2) Doesn't apply to incest
3) Doesn't apply to the mother's health being in danger during pregnancy
4) A lump of cells is not a person or a baby in the legal sense, which is all that matters when discussing "killing or murder". This is why the SCOTUS didn't actually made abortion illegal.
5) A lump of cells cannot evolve into a baby without living off the host, in this case, the mother's body. It's her body and she can choose what to do with it.
6) For all the above reasons, your analogy sucks. But you're stupid, so that part makes sense.

[Thread]

Donald Trump's lasting legacy will now be the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 3:37 PM ET, Sat June 25, 2022



Nigh on a half-century & that old man rendered it null & void.

Trump President.
Not Clinton.

Roe is dead, Trump put it on-the-spot and killed it. No mistakes this time; he chose wisely, hitting each of the 3 like ringing a bell. Nobody faltered, or, turned him.

And late your side came hard; first with the leak and then late with the assassination attempt on Kavanaugh.

Trump did right.

"Easy to do justice. Hard to do right."

[Splits]

Its not rocket science and ive given this analogy before and you democrats cant answer it so you ignore it,,,responsibility is the key. If i drink alcohol,,,im expected to drink responsibly because my actions my harm myself or more importantly another person and if i drink and drive,,,im rolling the dice and if i harm another person im prosocuted,,,same should go for sex,,,,do it responsibly,,,you get pregnant,,,you dont get the luxury to kill an inconvenience in your belly just like a drinker doesnt get to kill a person on the road. Keep your legs closed if you cant practice safe sex,,,simple as that. Murder is no longer legal for you. Take the pill,,,get your tubes tied,,,make him wear a condon,,,,all proven effective ways to prevent pregnancy,,,democrats are trying to say i should be able to have sex without any prevention and if I get pregnant, I should have the right to kill it,,,bull ,,,,GFY.

lmao Incel 101 post

[DMC]

they were banking on the night of rage

Because states can do whatever they want with it. The fight should be against the states that disallow it.

[Will Hunting]

lmao Incel 101 post

Incels are very focused on punishing women who don't want to have sex with them

[DMC]

Which would be pretty hilarious in the sense that the advice from those people generally is not to have sex if you don't want to get pregnant, while they believe in a religion where a woman didn't have sex but ended up pregnant anyways...

Mary's Abortion sounds like a grunge band name.

[DMC]

An indication SR21 is not interested in a 12 page rodeo with a pro choice poster advocating for a position he doesn’t actually support.

:popcorn

You cannot get enough of me, on the other hand

[DMC]

There are competing interests. Not a difficult concept

Every thread in the forum boils down to this gross oversimplification of a more complex issue.