Jump to content

Roe vs Wade Overturned


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you can argue with this.

 

 

 

Roe decision was always a house of cards — abortion must be up to the people

by Dan McLaughlin

 

After 49 years of legal arguments, protests and political battles over the composition of the Supreme Court, the court has finally overturned Roe v. Wade.

 

No matter how you feel about abortion, this should be welcomed as a healthy development for American democracy and for the rule of written law made by the people’s representatives.

 

Roe was a legal mistake that played a large role in driving our national politics crazy. Now the democratic process gets to decide what happens to abortion.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/06/24/roe-decision-was-always-a-house-of-cards-abortion-must-be-up-to-the-people/

 

 

.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you can argue with this.

 

 

 

Roe decision was always a house of cards — abortion must be up to the people

by Dan McLaughlin

 

After 49 years of legal arguments, protests and political battles over the composition of the Supreme Court, the court has finally overturned Roe v. Wade.

 

No matter how you feel about abortion, this should be welcomed as a healthy development for American democracy and for the rule of written law made by the people’s representatives.

 

Roe was a legal mistake that played a large role in driving our national politics crazy. Now the democratic process gets to decide what happens to abortion.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/06/24/roe-decision-was-always-a-house-of-cards-abortion-must-be-up-to-the-people/

 

 

.

You really can’t. Some will try and say it’s the worst decision ever but it’s quite the opposite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

The "spine" of Mitch McConnel.  That might be the funniest thing I've read in a really long time.  

 

You ever see animals abandon their young if they aren't fit?  Or the ones that eat them?  Or the ones that wipe out an entire group of young to they can impregnate the mothers again? So yeah, your point is pointless.

It’s moral to eat kids because animals do it. Sick point idiot. 

10 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

All good points, but I would go a bit further - why do we always fall back on "endangers her life?"

What if there's no threat to her life, but what if she has severe morning sickness? I looked it up because, well, I'm not a woman: it typically begins at 6 weeks, is at its worst at 9 weeks, and can continue a few weeks beyond that. So we tell women: "You are required to undergo 6 weeks of misery even though a simple procedure could restore you to full health and happiness almost immediately."

I don't see how the existence of a mere potential for a human life more than half a year later can outweigh the woman's interest in her own health and happiness.

 

 

LMAO I MUST KILL MY CHILD BC IM SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE. ANOTHER GREAT POINT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Andy1 said:


Roe v Wade was the compromise you talk of. That is why people are so outraged about this court decision. From Roe v Wade in Wikipedia:

 

The Court resolved these competing interests by announcing a trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. During the first trimester, governments could not regulate abortion at all, except to require that abortions be performed by a licensed physician. During the second trimester, governments could regulate the abortion procedure, but only for the purpose of protecting maternal health and not for protecting fetal life. After viability (which includes the third trimester of pregnancy and the last few weeks of the second trimester), abortions could be regulated and even prohibited, but only if the laws provided exceptions for abortions necessary to save the "life" or "health" of the mother.

 

No compromise in throwing the issue to the Federal government. It doesn’t belong there. It belongs to the people.. i.e the states. 

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Hers, obviously. She doesn't exist separately from a part of her body.

 

 

No. Bodily autonomy cannot be compromised. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy. That's like saying consenting to driving is also consenting to being in a car accident. Pregnancy is inherently dangerous. Nobody should be forced against their will to put their own life at risk, even if another life is at stake. Think of the implications of that moral standard if applied to all walks of life. Should we start forcing the elderly to give up their organs to young people? Even if you take the most conservative view of fetus personhood I still don't accept that a person should be forced by the government to do that to themselves.

This would be a good point if there was any way to get pregnant without having sex. But there isn’t. They know the game and the score. If you don’t accept it, don’t play.

 

If you can’t accept the risk of a car accident, don’t get behind the wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FireChans said:

This would be a good point if there was any way to get pregnant without having sex. But there isn’t. They know the game and the score. If you don’t accept it, don’t play.

 

If you can’t accept the risk of a car accident, don’t get behind the wheel.

Well there is a way, but that’s irrelevant here. Maybe not even driving , but consenting to getting in the car. Id say it’s more akin to driving without insurance. You wouldn’t want to do that. There are many types- iud , pill, condom, plan B etc. That car accident could get really expensive without those. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ChiGoose said:


What if she did not consent?

 

What if she could not consent?

 

What if she did consent and wanted the pregnancy but now it endangers her life?

 

Without the protections of Roe and Casey, there are no guardrails for these scenarios. It is completely up to state legislatures on how to handle them. 

If not the legislatures, who should it be up to? Legislation is needed to address everything you just mentioned, no?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Hers, obviously. She doesn't exist separately from a part of her body.

 

 

No. Bodily autonomy cannot be compromised. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy. That's like saying consenting to driving is also consenting to being in a car accident. Pregnancy is inherently dangerous. Nobody should be forced against their will to put their own life at risk, even if another life is at stake. Think of the implications of that moral standard if applied to all walks of life. Should we start forcing the elderly to give up their organs to young people? Even if you take the most conservative view of fetus personhood I still don't accept that a person should be forced by the government to do that to themselves.

You don't consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is the result of an action and a women consents to that action (ignore rape for now). You don't consent to a auto accident (the result of an action) but you do consent to getting in the car and driving (the action). This supports my point regarding consent to an action.

 

Allow me to get wonky hypothetical with you.  You and I engage in an activity. I do something that causes you to have to be connected to me to survive. A tube connects us for that purpose. Let's say you need the use of my kidneys for a short time. Again, this was caused totally by my action, through no fault of yours. The next day, or the next week, I want to claim personal autonomy and unplug you. Moral? My opinion is no, it isn't. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be ok with legislatures solving the issue provided that the voting members were all women. This is a womens health issue. If women decided the rules, we would probably get to reasonable compromise in the states. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

I would be ok with legislatures solving the issue provided that the voting members were all women. This is a womens health issue. If women decided the rules, we would probably get to reasonable compromise in the states. 

lmao no.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

I would be ok with legislatures solving the issue provided that the voting members were all women. This is a womens health issue. If women decided the rules, we would probably get to reasonable compromise in the states. 

You are ignoring the other side of the issue. The life of the unborn. The problem with the abortion issue is one side focuses totally on the woman and the other side focuses totally on the unborn life.  As long as we continue this, no solution will ever be reached.

 

This is a legislative issue to solve. The people need to solve it. All of us. And most certainly it shouldn't be decided by 9 robes. The SCOTUS kicked it back to us, where it belongs.

 

An interesting observation is that state legislatures are all over this issue, on both sides. Our US legislature doesn't seem to me to really want to touch this. Too much money and power at stake, perhaps?

Edited by Pokebball
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

I would be ok with legislatures solving the issue provided that the voting members were all women. This is a womens health issue. If women decided the rules, we would probably get to reasonable compromise in the states. 

Lol .. no it isn’t. It’s merely allowing or outlawing a procedure to be performed. Nothing to do with the woman, but with the person performing said procedure . Also women can vote, and slightly outnumber men. I’d venture men have an interest in allowing the procedure as well. All should be fine. Maybe a few Bible Belt states where few would want to live will have the strictest regulations. Not a huge deal as there will be plenty of places to go for abortions. They will still be widely available. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

It’s moral to eat kids because animals do it. Sick point idiot. 

LMAO I MUST KILL MY CHILD BC IM SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE. ANOTHER GREAT POINT.

 

How high was that hurdle you had to jump to get "it's ok to eat children" from what I said? Someone claimed that animals were better than us because they will risk their lives for their young.  But a majority of animals will abandon/kill their own young for a variety of reasons if the circumstances give them a reason to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

You are ignoring the other side of the issue. The life of the unborn. The problem with the abortion issue is one side focuses totally on the woman and the other side focuses totally on the unborn life.  As long as we continue this, no solution will ever be reached.

 

This is a legislative issue to solve. The people need to solve it. All of us. And most certainly it shouldn't be decided by 9 robes. The SCOTUS kicked it back to us, where it belongs.

Are only men concerned about the life of the unborn? What I suggested was hypothetical of course, but I still believe that women understand this complex issue on a far deeper level than men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...