Roe vs Wade Overturned

[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.