Roe vs Wade Overturned

[Nextmanup]

11 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

This wouldn't be so bad for states to be able to do what they want.  I don't know why New York and California should tell people how to live in South Dakota.

South Dakota shouldn't have senators!  The raw structure of this country is now antiquated and inefficient.

 

 

[Demongyz]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Well for one, because one would  hope that women would have access to proper healthcare regardless of which state they were in.

 

And for another, states like mine are now going to have to provide services to people from other states, in effect subsidizing them.

 

Decisions in some states can have impacts on people in other states.

Your state doesn't have to do anything.  They can choose to do as they will.

 

Also, wouldn't one hope that fetuses would get proper healthcare in all states without the option of murdering them?

2 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

South Dakota shouldn't have senators!  The raw structure of this country is now antiquated and inefficient.

 

 

You are absolutely wrong.  The Republic is the only reason why minorities have any rights at all.

[Tiberius]

 

[Demongyz]

Just now, Tiberius said:

 

Kentanji Brown Jackson doesn't even know what a woman is.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Demongyz said:

Your state doesn't have to do anything.  They can choose to do as they will.

 

Also, wouldn't one hope that fetuses would get proper healthcare in all states without the option of murdering them?

 

 

If you think overturning Roe and banning abortions is about having more babies, then you're not paying attention.

 

And as I have pointed out elsewhere, this can have dire consequences for women who have miscarriages.

 

If people really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, there are proven methods for that.  Banning abortions is not one of them, but reducing the number of abortions isn't the point for them anyway.

[ALF]

4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Missing my point.  

 

Reid's initial actions despite being warned this would happen he did it anyway.

 

11/21/2013
The Senate approved a historic rules change on Thursday by eliminating the use of the filibuster on all presidential nominees except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Invoking the long-threatened “nuclear option” means that most of President Barack Obama’s judicial and executive branch nominees no longer need to clear a 60-vote threshold to reach the Senate floor and get an up-or-down vote.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-nuclear-option-100199

 

No McConnell and Trump did it anyway

[HappyDays]

2 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

Also, wouldn't one hope that fetuses would get proper healthcare in all states without the option of murdering them?

 

Fetuses aren't considered persons by the government. And the woman carrying the fetus in essence is being forced to carry the pregnancy to term which is absolutely a violation of bodily autonomy. Would you support a law that required mothers to give up their organs if their child needed a life saving transplant? Would you support forcing people to sign up as organ donors after death? Should a pregnant woman given a diagnosis of likely death by her obstetrician be forced to carry the fetus to term and sacrifice her own life for it? You can have whatever opinion you want on the morality of such choices, but ultimately I will never support forcing a person to violate their bodily autonomy.

[B-Man]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

 

 

Hey Hugo, how about a link to where those nominees said that Roe v Wade was settled law ?

 

 

[Demongyz]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

If you think overturning Roe and banning abortions is about having more babies, then you're not paying attention.

 

And as I have pointed out elsewhere, this can have dire consequences for women who have miscarriages.

 

If people really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, there are proven methods for that.  Banning abortions is not one of them, but reducing the number of abortions isn't the point for them anyway.

I may be wrong about more babies being born, I hope I'm right.

 

I expect they will still provide the care needed for miscarriages, I can't imagine why they would not.

 

[B-Man]

Just now, Demongyz said:

 

 

I expect they will still provide the care needed for miscarriages, I can't imagine why they would not.

 

 

 

You can't imagine it because that assertion was never true.

 

 

[Demongyz]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

Fetuses aren't considered persons by the government. And the woman carrying the fetus in essence is being forced to carry the pregnancy to term which is absolutely a violation of bodily autonomy. Would you support a law that required mothers to give up their organs if their child needed a life saving transplant? Would you support forcing people to sign up as organ donors after death? Should a pregnant woman given a diagnosis of likely death by her obstetrician be forced to carry the fetus to term and sacrifice her own life for it? You can have whatever opinion you want on the morality of such choices, but ultimately I will never support forcing a person to violate their bodily autonomy.

Unless it comes to a vaccine?

 

The federal government doesn't have to consider a fetus a person, but states can.  If a pregnant woman gets punched in the stomach and loses the baby should the assailant be prosecuted for murder? 

 

I'm not saying mothers should give up organs to save their child, but I would say a good mother would.

 

No, people should not be forced to donate organs, but they should.

 

No, I don't think a mother should be forced to carry the baby to term if it would mean the death of the mother, but I would recommend attempting to deliver the baby alive instead of decapitating it then delivering it.  End the pregnancy, not the life in all possible cases.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

We all agree rape pregnancies should be pro choice right? Does anyone disagree with that?

 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

I'm pro life but don't impose my beliefs on others. I would imagine pro choice advocates fund raising to cover travel and other expenses to those who can't afford out of state abortion.

Tesla, Amazon, etc have announced they will cover these costs.  Funny it's not mentioned. Big business is bad!!!!

[Demongyz]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

We all agree rape pregnancies should be pro choice right? Does anyone disagree with that?

 

Begrudgingly, I agree.  It's the saddest thing I can think of.

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

Unless it comes to a vaccine?

 

 

Poor analogy. No one is legally forced to get vaccinated, as in getting held down and jabbed with a needle. If you don't get vaccinated you lose certain social privileges. There are certain counties in America where if it is discovered that a woman had an abortion she would become a social pariah. That is a consequence of living in society. That isn't the same thing as totally stripping away a person's bodily autonomy and literally forcing them to make a choice they don't want to make.

[boyst]

20 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

11/21/2013
The Senate approved a historic rules change on Thursday by eliminating the use of the filibuster on all presidential nominees except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Invoking the long-threatened “nuclear option” means that most of President Barack Obama’s judicial and executive branch nominees no longer need to clear a 60-vote threshold to reach the Senate floor and get an up-or-down vote.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-nuclear-option-100199

 

No McConnell and Trump did it anyway

The Democrats rewrote rules over and over again to step all over republicans. The Republicans did this and it's now tragic? Please

 

The left playbook is this: J6 + supreme court = trump subverted democracy and it's illegitimate. 

 

Anyone who supported trump is now a threat to democracy.

 

Specific Republicans are banned from running.

 

Step 2: ban Republicans

[ALF]

‘Alarmed’ Joe Manchin Accepts He’s Been Played by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch

“I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans,” Manchin wrote in a statement.

 

The Catholic senator said he’s still anti-abortion but supports legislation to safeguard the rights previously protected by Roe. He said he’s hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can draft such legislation, though there hasn’t been much consensus to do so in the past.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/senator-joe-manchin-feels-betrayed-by-brett-kavanaugh-and-neil-gorsuch-after-roe-v-wade-decision

[HappyDays]

10 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

The federal government doesn't have to consider a fetus a person, but states can.

 

Correct. I'm fine with the Supreme Court decision. I'm talking about my personal views on this subject.

 

11 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

I'm not saying mothers should give up organs to save their child, but I would say a good mother would.

 

No, people should not be forced to donate organs, but they should.

 

No, I don't think a mother should be forced to carry the baby to term if it would mean the death of the mother, but I would recommend attempting to deliver the baby alive instead of decapitating it then delivering it.  End the pregnancy, not the life in all possible cases.

 

So you seemingly agree that having a moral opinion and forcing that opinion legally are two separate things. That's all I'm saying. Personally I don't believe abortion is inherently immoral. I respect those that think it is immoral. I would rather the law not force that decision. And for what it's worth I am consistent in that view with regards to all forms of bodily autonomy.

[Niagara Bill]

10 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

Unless it comes to a vaccine?

 

The federal government doesn't have to consider a fetus a person, but states can.  If a pregnant woman gets punched in the stomach and loses the baby should the assailant be prosecuted for murder? 

 

I'm not saying mothers should give up organs to save their child, but I would say a good mother would.

 

No, people should not be forced to donate organs, but they should.

 

No, I don't think a mother should be forced to carry the baby to term if it would mean the death of the mother, but I would recommend attempting to deliver the baby alive instead of decapitating it then delivering it.  End the pregnancy, not the life in all possible cases.

But it is the feds who set the law...so now you say that a fetus is not a person in their eyes? How can the feds have it both ways. The only way a law of anti abortion rights is to assume the fetus is a person.

Or are they taking a religious approach and inforcing religious beliefs.

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

Begrudgingly, I agree.  It's the saddest thing I can think of.

In some states the new laws will prevent choice even if a rape occurred. 

[HappyDays]

14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

We all agree rape pregnancies should be pro choice right? Does anyone disagree with that?

 

 

I've never understood this rape exception argument. Just about every pro-life individual I've ever talked to is anti-abortion because they believe fetuses are persons. If that is the case it shouldn't matter how the fetus came to be. The choices of the mother that led to the pregnancy should have exactly zero bearing on the supposed person's right to exist. The fact that so many pro-life people agree with the rape exception tells me that deep down they know abortion isn't really killing a person. They know that the women have some level of autonomy in that decision.

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by HappyDays

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I've never understood this exception argument. Just about every pro-life individual I've ever talked to is anti-abortion because they believe fetuses are persons. If that is the case it shouldn't matter how the fetus came to be. The choices of the mother that led to the pregnancy should have exactly zero bearing on the supposed person's right to exist. The fact that so many pro-life people agree with the rape exception tells me that deep down they know abortion isn't really killing a person. They know that the women have some level of autonomy in that decision.

Supposed person? You have got to be kidding…right? 

[Niagara Bill]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

I've never understood this exception argument. Just about every pro-life individual I've ever talked to is anti-abortion because they believe fetuses are persons. If that is the case it shouldn't matter how the fetus came to be. The choices of the mother that led to the pregnancy should have exactly zero bearing on the supposed person's right to exist. The fact that so many pro-life people agree with the rape exception tells me that deep down they know abortion isn't really killing a person. They know that the women have some level of autonomy in that decision.

I think they see themselves in that situation. The rest is straight religious views. I hope they believe in the rest of the commandments with the same vigor.  

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Supposed person? You have got to be kidding…right? 

 

No, I don't believe a fetus is a person. And that's not an uncommon opinion in this country. But I'm not gonna get stuck in the weeds on this point, it's the definition of a grey area. My arguments in favor of abortion rights work without ever needing to address that question. I believe bodily autonomy supersedes all else even when another person's life is involved.

 

5 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

I think they see themselves in that situation.

 

And that's kind of my point. Some of the pro-life arguments I see boil down to "if you have sex and get pregnant, your punishment is being forced to carry it to term." What about a woman who uses every possible form of birth control and still gets unluckily pregnant? Should she be forced to carry it to term? There's no logic in that.

Edited June 24, 2022 by HappyDays

[ALF]

13 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

The Democrats rewrote rules over and over again to step all over republicans. The Republicans did this and it's now tragic? Please

 

The left playbook is this: J6 + supreme court = trump subverted democracy and it's illegitimate. 

 

Anyone who supported trump is now a threat to democracy.

 

Specific Republicans are banned from running.

 

Step 2: ban Republicans

 

The bottom line is the Republican politicians have gotten what they wanted. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Let me ask the defenders of this decision. (And none of us can pretend to have read it yet!)

 

I understand it turns the matter over to the states with no limits ("after 6 weeks of pregnancy", etc.). I know many people, including religious people, with kids born of in vitro fertilization. That will now be illegal in many states. Clinics will have to shut down there and the desperate-to-get-pregnant women (umm, "people" haha) will have to travel for these procedures at even greater expense.

 

Do you think this is a good thing? Do you think women are likely to accept this?

I'm not a defender per se, but want to jump in here. 

 

First, I acknowledge there was a time  I never saw this day coming.  Abortion is such a minefield of emotion, money, power, sexual identity and politics I just never thought I would see the day that Roe v Wade was overturned.  To take that one step further, I used to think that the concept of a full-term child being aborted was reserved for a few select crazies in the world, and I was wrong on that, too.   What a fascinating world we live in where a woman isn't necessarily a woman, a man could be, and the choices offered are supposedly reduced to "kill at will" and "Nope, not never".  

 

My initial response to your question is this:  It seems, as has been discussed many times by conservatives and liberals alike, that Roe v Wade was improperly decided and thus was bad law.    

 

If so, it seems to me that politicians of every stripe should be preaching, in unison, to constituents that it was bad law and that the ability to correct it rests directly with both leaders in Congress and constituents who vote.   Put another way, simply because the law was overturned does not mean that our nation's today has to represent our tomorrow.  

 

The reality is that this issue is used as a hammer to divide people.  It's not as if yesterday, last week, last month or last year it was not a divisive issue.  It's been so for as long as I can recall, and folks--men and women---vote what's important to them.  This theory that the suburbs are lost seems a but premature imo.  

 

I'm also reminded that as much as I dislike it, as a citizen I'm bound to honor and live under the leadership of Biden and the democrats at this point.   The people voted, the results tallied, the arguments raged, but in the end, here we are.  Suddenly though, some would have us believe that the laws and rules put in place by elected state leaders have no relevance or simply aren't good enough.  Those people tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum than those holding power. 

 

In the end, while it's good or not, if it was bad law, the opportunity to fix it is now.  It has long been screamed from the highest rooftops that the vast majority of Americans support abortion as an option to terminate a pregnancy.   I guess my response now is...let's see what happens next. 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ON DOBBS:

 

First, it’s a big win for the rule of law — by which I mean not so much the opinion as that the justices stood firm in the face of unprecedented threats ranging from Chuck Schumer’s “pay the price” language to mobs and an actual armed assassin showing up at their homes. A Supreme Court that can be bullied is a Supreme Court that will be bullied. Unlike Roberts’ flip in the ObamaCare case, the majority here held firm, which will discourage bullying in the future.

 

Second, the likely result is that a few states will ban abortion entirely, a few will permit it for the entire term, and for most it’ll look something like Europe, with abortion easy to get for the first 12 weeks or so, and much harder after that. (The Mississippi law in question here was actually more liberal than many, perhaps most, European laws).

 

States won’t be able to ban interstate travel for the purpose of getting an abortion because interstate travel is a separate constitutional right. Congress will not be able to guarantee a right to abortion because its 14th Amendment power to enforce the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to abortion, which the Court has found isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment. It will not be able to either protect abortion or ban it under its commerce power because abortion isn’t interstate commerce, and is a traditional subject of state regulation.

 

It’ll take a few years to shake out, but we’re likely to wind up with what we would have had by 1976 or so if Roe had never been decided — a spectrum of laws around the country that will be adjusted over time based on experience and the views of the electorate. Though, of course, the norm may be stricter than it would have been without Roe, which called into being a huge pro-life movement that probably wouldn’t have existed otherwise.

 

 

 

 

It’ll be interesting to see if this reduces the flow of immigrants from blue states to red. That’ll be a measure of how much people actually care. To be honest, I kinda hope it does slow the flow.

 

by Glenn Reynolds

 

https://instapundit.com/527664/

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

36 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

I expect they will still provide the care needed for miscarriages, I can't imagine why they would not.

 

 

They will not be required to, it all depends on how they want to write the laws. And from what I've seen, many of the people writing these laws are not exactly the brightest people. 

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, muppy said:

hey DR just curious: do you think such a call for no violence isn't appropriate for he to say? He needs to urge calm IMO  The fringe who would do such things I really pray is small. But this is as hot a tribal issue and development as there is and you I trust know that mate.

 

m

 

I think it is very appropriate for him to call for calm and no violence.  I'm just very pessimistic that he will ever do so.

 

I'd be happy to hear him encourage people to exercise their constitutional right to protest peacefully and patriotically.  But I wouldn't want him to say that and then be accused of inciting an insurrection either.

[B-Man]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

They will not be required to, it all depends on how they want to write the laws. And from what I've seen, many of the people writing these laws are not exactly the brightest people. 

 

 

MISCARRIAGES are not abortions !

 

They are NOT banned.

 

You can use the same equipment argument, but they are NOT the same thing.

 

 

"brightest people"   

[ALF]

2 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

I think it is very appropriate for him to call for calm and no violence.  I'm just very pessimistic that he will ever do so.

 

I'd be happy to hear him encourage people to exercise their constitutional right to protest peacefully and patriotically.  But I wouldn't want him to say that and then be accused of inciting an insurrection either.

 

Biden did exactly that at his 12:35 address  

[Tiberius]

 

[boyst]

12 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

The bottom line is the Republican politicians have gotten what they wanted. 

And polling supports the decision. 

 

But what matters is that the supreme court didn't cave to pressure by the violence and riots sure to ensue. Buildings will be torched. Cop cars destroyed. Etc

 

That's what happens when the government works as it is supposed to. The left goes nuts. 

[BillStime]

14 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

The bottom line is the Republican politicians have gotten what they wanted. 

 

At the moment...

 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

MISCARRIAGES are not abortions !

 

They are NOT banned.

 

You can use the same equipment argument, but they are NOT the same thing.

 

 

"brightest people"   

 

Methods of abortion: methotrexate, mifepristone, D&C, D&E, etc.

Treatment for miscarriage: methotrexate, mifepristone, D&C, D&E, etc.

 

@B-Man: these are completely different things.

[TurfToeJam]

For those that support abortions.... Take a look at real pictures of fetuses at early stages of development and tell me that's not a human.  

 

Abortion is killing.  

[Niagara Bill]

19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'm not a defender per se, but want to jump in here. 

 

First, I acknowledge there was a time  I never saw this day coming.  Abortion is such a minefield of emotion, money, power, sexual identity and politics I just never thought I would see the day that Roe v Wade was overturned.  To take that one step further, I used to think that the concept of a full-term child being aborted was reserved for a few select crazies in the world, and I was wrong on that, too.   What a fascinating world we live in where a woman isn't necessarily a woman, a man could be, and the choices offered are supposedly reduced to "kill at will" and "Nope, not never".  

 

My initial response to your question is this:  It seems, as has been discussed many times by conservatives and liberals alike, that Roe v Wade was improperly decided and thus was bad law.    

 

If so, it seems to me that politicians of every stripe should be preaching, in unison, to constituents that it was bad law and that the ability to correct it rests directly with both leaders in Congress and constituents who vote.   Put another way, simply because the law was overturned does not mean that our nation's today has to represent our tomorrow.  

 

The reality is that this issue is used as a hammer to divide people.  It's not as if yesterday, last week, last month or last year it was not a divisive issue.  It's been so for as long as I can recall, and folks--men and women---vote what's important to them.  This theory that the suburbs are lost seems a but premature imo.  

 

I'm also reminded that as much as I dislike it, as a citizen I'm bound to honor and live under the leadership of Biden and the democrats at this point.   The people voted, the results tallied, the arguments raged, but in the end, here we are.  Suddenly though, some would have us believe that the laws and rules put in place by elected state leaders have no relevance or simply aren't good enough.  Those people tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum than those holding power. 

 

In the end, while it's good or not, if it was bad law, the opportunity to fix it is now.  It has long been screamed from the highest rooftops that the vast majority of Americans support abortion as an option to terminate a pregnancy.   I guess my response now is...let's see what happens next. 

 

 

Your points are logical and even soothing. Middle ground must be found.

But in reading your thoughts it came into my mind that the same thoughts on gun issues need to follow this path. 

The world has changed, Trans, invitro, etc. Guns gave changed in 200 yrs. 

Seems hard liners fight and middle Americans suffer.

[Beast]

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, TurfToeJam said:

For those that support abortions.... Take a look at real pictures of fetuses at early stages of development and tell me that's not a human.  

 

Abortion is killing.  

So it can live on its own? 

[B-Man]

 

Amen. 

 

 

 

 

.

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

So it can live on its own? 

 

 

 a one year old can't live on it's own.

 

your point is ignorance personified.