Jump to content

Roe vs Wade Overturned


Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...