Roe vs Wade Overturned

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

The states will what? I think that was the question.

They will decide the manner of enforcement.

Just now, ChiGoose said:

The states will all set their own laws, so that rich people always have access to abortion but poor people may not. 
 

Some states will enact long arm statutes to punish people seeking abortions elsewhere.

 

People in some states will have more rights than people in other states.

 

People in some states may be prosecuted for miscarriages, needing to spend money on a lawyer to fight the charges.

 

Taxpayers in some states will have to pay for care for people fleeing other states for medical care. 
 

That is what “letting the states decide” means. 

lmao it's past your bedtime, save the histrionics for the morning.

[ChiGoose]

13 minutes ago, FireChans said:

They will decide the manner of enforcement.

lmao it's past your bedtime, save the histrionics for the morning.

I’m in central time, so I still have an hour or so before bedtime. 
 

What did I say that was histrionic?

[cle23]

11 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

I'd like to thank Obama, "stimulus," Obamacare, and his general awfulness for spurring the TEA Party - its culmination in Donald J. Trump - and the spine of Mitch McConnell for getting this to happen. 

 

 

God Bless them and those 5 Supreme Court Justices that understand the Constitution and have a clear moral compass.  

 

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

8 hours ago, T&C said:

Funny you mention this... I was thinking about it. As humans, the apex creature on this world, people are fighting to kill their unborn babies. Yet virtually every other creature on this world will go to great lengths to assure that their babies are taken care of pre and post birth and will defend them with their own lives if they have to. Such a distinct contrast.

 

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.

[Pokebball]

10 hours 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.

A woman consented to the action/activity that caused the child to come into existence.  Her organs, etc. are hers, I get that. But how about the uterus? Is that hers or the child's? It does nothing for mom. It's purpose is to nourish the developing child. Did the mother compromise her bodily autonomy when she consented to engage in the action that created that life?

 

Is it moral to reverse your consent, after it created a life? That's the moral dilemma I have.

[Orlando Buffalo]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m in central time, so I still have an hour or so before bedtime. 
 

What did I say that was histrionic?

Some states will enact long arm statutes to punish people seeking abortions elsewhere.

 

 This can't happen, you can't arrest someone for breaking one of your laws in another state where it is legal. Pot would not be able to be smoked elsewhere if this was true 

 

People in some states will have more rights than people in other states.

 

Already true, along with Pot in many places we have more gun rights than in NY.

 

 

People in some states may be prosecuted for miscarriages, needing to spend money on a lawyer to fight the charges.

 

If this happens I will vehemently fight it but this is like the people who argued that stand your ground would cause a wild west situation.

 

 

Taxpayers in some states will have to pay for care for people fleeing other states for medical care. 

 

Why would you have to pay for medical care for someone from out of state? In Florida we bill the insurance of people from out of state. Unless you are insinuating that people who get abortions don't have insurance?

[The Frankish Reich]

7 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Excellent point.

It was all so easy for the Republicans when Roe v. Wade offered them protection. Sure, we're pro-life, but its those other partial birth/free abortions for all liberals that are the real extremists.

It won't work now. Candidates on the national level will have to answer real questions: do you support a complete and total ban on all abortions? On morning after pill "abortions?" On in vitro fertilization in which 8 eggs are fertilized, one or two are implanted, and the rest disposed of? The old talking points won't work anymore.

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

A woman consented to the action/activity that caused the child to come into existence.  Her organs, etc. are hers, I get that. But how about the uterus? Is that hers or the child's? It does nothing for mom. It's purpose is to nourish the developing child. Did the mother compromise her bodily autonomy when she consented to engage in the action that created that life?

 

Is it moral to reverse your consent, after it created a life? That's the moral dilemma I have.

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. 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes 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. 

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.

 

 

[Milanos Milano]

9 hours ago, Demongyz said:

Morality will never be on the side of killing babies.

 

I personally agree with leaving abortion up for the states to decide, I generally don’t like abortion, but I’m not going to impose my will on sovereign states to govern how they seem fit. Unless someone is a religious person, morality is completely subjective. 

[Coffeesforclosers]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

It means that if you’re pregnant and then not pregnant, you can be investigated for an abortion. 
 

Which is why everyone should delete their period tracking apps. 

 

There are two ways the GOP can potentially ***** up thier prospects. Unifying and motivating democratic voters through Roe.  And a Trump vs. DeSantis fight to the finish that demoralizes and splits the GOP base. 

[SydneyBillsFan]

Sanity prevails.

 

There is now renewed hope for the once great USA.

[Gene Frenkle]

3 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

Sanity prevails.

 

There is now renewed hope for the once great USA.

 

Forced religious doctrine wins. Hooray!

[Andy1]

If abortion is the murder of a human, how much prison time must women serve who get or attempt to have an abortion? If women get multiple abortions would they be eligible for the death penalty? How about the abortion of twin or multiple embryos? Republicans must now answer these questions. 

[T&C]

6 hours ago, muppy said:

 whats so funny? PLEASE put me on Ignore.

 

@T&C

I'm going to change my avatar... but most likely won't. Someone posts something I find funny I hit the funny button, it's a thing.

[Boatdrinks]

14 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?

It’s fine. There is no guaranteed right to fertility. Does that mean women will have to accept it ? Not necessarily. They can go where the procedure is legal. No right to inexpensive infertility treatments either. Seems an odd concern for a pro abortion individual though.  

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour 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.

 

 

I don’t disagree with any of this, but I’m also fine with the overturning of Roe. It’s just not a Constitutional right. There will be many States that allow abortions with varying degrees of restriction. If the people don’t want restrictions in their state they’ll vote in new politicians to change it or they will leave. 

[Boatdrinks]

48 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

If abortion is the murder of a human, how much prison time must women serve who get or attempt to have an abortion? If women get multiple abortions would they be eligible for the death penalty? How about the abortion of twin or multiple embryos? Republicans must now answer these questions. 

Those questions will be answered in enacted laws. If the people don’t like them they will demand change. Or they will go elsewhere. It’s simply not a matter provided for in the Constitution. 

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Forced religious doctrine wins. Hooray!

Nothing at all religious about this decision. Strictly a matter of the Constitution and States rights. 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

Those questions will be answered in enacted laws. If the people don’t like them they will demand change. Or they will go elsewhere. It’s simply not a matter provided for in the Constitution. 

Nothing at all religious about this decision. Strictly a matter of the Constitution and States rights. 

I'm pro choice up to fetus viability but I agree that Roe v. Wade should've been overturned because it was a crappy decision in the first place.  Let the voters decide and give power back to the legislative branch where it belongs.  

 

I am interested in seeing how Republicans play this.  They know strict abortion laws are unpopular but have always been in favor of them knowing that Roe v. Wade would prevent them from ever being a reality.

[BringMetheHeadofLeonLett]

20 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

So you’re cheering this decision because it will be good for Democrats?   😏

No dipshit, nobody's cheering on the idea that we as human beings are addled with very difficult moral decisions.  

[HappyDays]

7 hours ago, Pokebball said:

But how about the uterus? Is that hers or the child's

 

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

 

7 hours ago, Pokebball said:

Did the mother compromise her bodily autonomy when she consented to engage in the action that created that life?

 

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.