Can Roe v Wade be overturned?

[dismal]

The question was can Roe v. Wade be overturned. The answer is: yes.

Duh. The answer to "is it going to rain fish?" is also yes*, and is equally useless. A more meaningful way to answer would be to outline conditions contributing to increasing or decreasing the likelihood of the event (as I did). Simply stating "yes" in the hope that people will be un-surprised and accepting of fish falling out of the sky, is dishonest.

* I have seen it rain fish - it has happened and yes, it will happen again

Well, good luck with the blathering crazy talk. I hope it works out for you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question was can Roe v. Wade be overturned. The answer is: yes.

The conversation in the OP is meant to go a couple steps beyond the 'yes', as it was looking for the justification for that answer and how it could affect other protections.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's probably simple enough to overturn it. The Supreme Court rules that it's not a constitutional right...

What isn't a Constitutional Right? Abortion rights stems from privacy rights. Prosecution will need to demonstrate that a medical procedure for a woman isn't a matter of privacy. And if a medical procedure for a woman isn't a matter of privacy, why would contraception be one?

States can do whatever they want on the matter, so States start to do whatever they want. That's why the States are making laws saying that they can do whatever they want on the matter just after Trump appointed a couple more conservative judges to the Court.

States have been making laws restricting abortion for decades. They got smacked down a couple of years ago, but they have seen the appointment of Kennedy's replacement as an opportunity to stop nitpick abortion, and straight up quasi-ban it.

 

[dismal]

It's probably simple enough to overturn it. The Supreme Court rules that it's not a constitutional right...

What isn't a Constitutional Right? Abortion rights stems from privacy rights. Prosecution will need to demonstrate that a medical procedure for a woman isn't a matter of privacy. And if a medical procedure for a woman isn't a matter of privacy, why would contraception be one?

States can do whatever they want on the matter, so States start to do whatever they want. That's why the States are making laws saying that they can do whatever they want on the matter just after Trump appointed a couple more conservative judges to the Court.

States have been making laws restricting abortion for decades. They got smacked down a couple of years ago, but they have seen the appointment of Kennedy's replacement as an opportunity to stop nitpick abortion, and straight up quasi-ban it.

There is no "prosecution". There is no "reasonable doubt". The star chamber can rule whatever it wants. Just like it did in Roe v. Wade.

You live by the star chamber, you can die by the star chamber. The penumbras and emanations from the unicorns drinking at the waterhole of those penumbras don't always break your way.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The question was can Roe v. Wade be overturned. The answer is: yes.

The conversation in the OP is meant to go a couple steps beyond the 'yes', as it was looking for the justification for that answer and how it could affect other protections.

You've used too many words. Did you not notice who you were replying to?

 

[Half-Life]

Hey guys, I used to post on here years ago. I have been thinking about the abortion argument and I am seeing hypocrisy.

It is OK for a woman to abort the baby because it is "not yet a human being." However, if someone were to stab a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, they get charged with murder. How is this possible if a fetus is not a human being?

Either it's a human being, and abortion AND murder of the baby should be illegal, or it's not a human being and abortion AND murder should both be legal. You can't say "Abortion is not murder but someone else doing it is murder." See the hypocrisy? This is why I'm leaning more towards the pro-life side.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Hey guys, I used to post on here years ago. I have been thinking about the abortion argument and I am seeing hypocrisy.

It is OK for a woman to abort the baby because it is "not yet a human being." However, if someone were to stab a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, they get charged with murder. How is this possible if a fetus is not a human being?

Either it's a human being, and abortion AND murder of the baby should be illegal, or it's not a human being and abortion AND murder should both be legal. You can't say "Abortion is not murder but someone else doing it is murder." See the hypocrisy? This is why I'm leaning more towards the pro-life side.

First, that would be the hypocrisy of those who make that claim. I have not seen that claim made here. I definitely would not do it.

Second, even if all people on the pro-choice side were hypocritical about abortion, that would not give you any good reasons to lean against choice. The relevant moral question is whether or when it's acceptable to ban abortion, which does not depend on whether those in favor of not banning it are being hypocritical.

Incidentally - though not important with respect to the moral issue at hand when it comes to leaning pro-choice or against -, that does not look like hypocrisy but inconsistency to me. Anyway, there is plenty of it on the anti-choice side as well. For example, many people in favor of banning elective abortions are still willing to allow them in case of rape or even incest. Yet, they claim it's murder to abort an embryo or fetus. It's a very similar kind of inconsistency as what you accuse the pro-choice side of (so, if one is hypocritical, it seems to me so is the other).

 

[bilby]

Hey guys, I used to post on here years ago. I have been thinking about the abortion argument and I am seeing hypocrisy.

It is OK for a woman to abort the baby because it is "not yet a human being." However, if someone were to stab a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, they get charged with murder. How is this possible if a fetus is not a human being?

Either it's a human being, and abortion AND murder of the baby should be illegal, or it's not a human being and abortion AND murder should both be legal. You can't say "Abortion is not murder but someone else doing it is murder." See the hypocrisy? This is why I'm leaning more towards the pro-life side.

The question of personhood is irrelevant. Even if we were to declare that all fetuses are fully human and entitled to the exact same rights as an adult human being, abortion would still be morally justifiable on the basis of bodily autonomy.

If one of my kidneys could save your life, but I decline to give it to you, that's my call. There's nothing that compels me to allow you the use of my kidney, even if it will save your life, at little risk to mine.

Similarly, if my uterus* could keep you alive, but I decline to allow its use for that purpose, that's my call. There's nothing that compels me to allow someone else the use of my uterus, even if it will save their life, at little risk to mine.

It's as simple as that. A fetus is not a human being; But if it were, it would STILL not be morally acceptable to make a woman provide her uterus to that being against her will.

And by the way, carrying a pregnancy to term and then giving birth is NOT a 'little risk' - it's a big risk. Death in childbirth is a lot less common today than it was in the past, but it's still a real and present danger for every mother. Nobody - born or not - has the right to compel anyone to accept that risk against their will.












* I don't actually have one, but I understand that just over half the population do, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument, so I am comfortable with the hypothetical in this context.

 

[Elixir]

The question was can Roe v. Wade be overturned. The answer is: yes.

Duh. The answer to "is it going to rain fish?" is also yes*, and is equally useless. A more meaningful way to answer would be to outline conditions contributing to increasing or decreasing the likelihood of the event (as I did). Simply stating "yes" in the hope that people will be un-surprised and accepting of fish falling out of the sky, is dishonest.

* I have seen it rain fish - it has happened and yes, it will happen again

Well, good luck with the blathering crazy talk. I hope it works out for you.

I apologize for referring to nuances that are apparently beyond your ability to perceive... that does explain a lot.
BTW, I'm quite certain that everyone here knows that mechanisms exist for overturning precedents. The first line in the OP reads:
"In general, one can easily say "Yes!" that Roe v Wade can be overturned."
But again I apologize for highlighting your inability to go beyond the obvious. My bad

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hey guys, I used to post on here years ago. I have been thinking about the abortion argument and I am seeing hypocrisy.

It is OK for a woman to abort the baby because it is "not yet a human being." However, if someone were to stab a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, they get charged with murder. How is this possible if a fetus is not a human being?

Either it's a human being, and abortion AND murder of the baby should be illegal, or it's not a human being and abortion AND murder should both be legal. You can't say "Abortion is not murder but someone else doing it is murder." See the hypocrisy? This is why I'm leaning more towards the pro-life side.

Pro-choice is about the mother's choice. Not some random murderer's choice.

 

[Half-Life]

The question of personhood is irrelevant. Even if we were to declare that all fetuses are fully human and entitled to the exact same rights as an adult human being, abortion would still be morally justifiable on the basis of bodily autonomy.

If one of my kidneys could save your life, but I decline to give it to you, that's my call. There's nothing that compels me to allow you the use of my kidney, even if it will save your life, at little risk to mine.

Similarly, if my uterus* could keep you alive, but I decline to allow its use for that purpose, that's my call. There's nothing that compels me to allow someone else the use of my uterus, even if it will save their life, at little risk to mine.

It's as simple as that. A fetus is not a human being; But if it were, it would STILL not be morally acceptable to make a woman provide her uterus to that being against her will.

And by the way, carrying a pregnancy to term and then giving birth is NOT a 'little risk' - it's a big risk. Death in childbirth is a lot less common today than it was in the past, but it's still a real and present danger for every mother. Nobody - born or not - has the right to compel anyone to accept that risk against their will.
* I don't actually have one, but I understand that just over half the population do, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument, so I am comfortable with the hypothetical in this context.

But with the kidneys argument, you didn't do anything to make the other person have a kidney problem. With pregnancy, you deliberately chose to have sex knowing full well you could end up pregnant. Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control because you were too irresponsible to think first. "Oh, I'm pregnant. I'm gonna punish the baby for my actions by killing it." See how crazy that is?

"I notice that everyone in favor of abortion is alive." - Ronald Reagan

 

[Half-Life]

Pro-choice is about the mother's choice. Not some random murderer's choice.

Let's examine this. A woman gets stabbed and her baby dies in the womb. She says, "I was getting an abortion tomorrow anyway. No big deal."

Is that OK?

 

[Rhea]

The idiotic law passed in Georgia doesn't even permit a woman to go to another state for an abortion. She can be sentenced up to ten years, if she does. Of course, that can't be enforced right now. I don't even know how that particular part of the law could ever be enforced. How can someone be punished for doing something legal in one state, but not the state where they reside? That's insane! But, then again, our Georgia Republican legislators aren't the brightest bulbs in the box.

Weren’t they some of the ones who tried to say if your human chattel got away from you to a free state, you somehow got to re-enslave them?

 

[Rhea]

The question of personhood is irrelevant. Even if we were to declare that all fetuses are fully human and entitled to the exact same rights as an adult human being, abortion would still be morally justifiable on the basis of bodily autonomy.

If one of my kidneys could save your life, but I decline to give it to you, that's my call. There's nothing that compels me to allow you the use of my kidney, even if it will save your life, at little risk to mine.

Similarly, if my uterus* could keep you alive, but I decline to allow its use for that purpose, that's my call. There's nothing that compels me to allow someone else the use of my uterus, even if it will save their life, at little risk to mine.

It's as simple as that. A fetus is not a human being; But if it were, it would STILL not be morally acceptable to make a woman provide her uterus to that being against her will.

And by the way, carrying a pregnancy to term and then giving birth is NOT a 'little risk' - it's a big risk. Death in childbirth is a lot less common today than it was in the past, but it's still a real and present danger for every mother. Nobody - born or not - has the right to compel anyone to accept that risk against their will.
* I don't actually have one, but I understand that just over half the population do, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument, so I am comfortable with the hypothetical in this context.

But with the kidneys argument, you didn't do anything to make the other person have a kidney problem.

Doesn’t matter. Coal CEOs are not compelled to donate parts of their lungs to the miners they are killing. Drink drivers are not compelled to give their liver to some whose liver needs replacement due to that accident. If you poke someone’s eye out, they don’t get to take yours. If you give someone diabetes, like a Soft drink CEO, no one gets to take your pancreas.

With pregnancy, you deliberately chose to have sex knowing full well you could end up pregnant.

Oh. So pregnancy is a punishment for bad behavior now?
Also, I have a right to have sex and not give birth. These forced-birthers are really busy taking away access to birth control. So, hypocrites still don’t get my body, sorry.

Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control because you were too irresponsible to think first.

Emotional argument assuming facts not in evidence.

"Oh, I'm pregnant. I'm gonna punish the baby for my actions by killing it." See how crazy that is?

. No. It’s not a “baby.” It’s not punishment. And really, even if it were, the fetus still has no right to the woman’s body.

 

[Rhea]

Pro-choice is about the mother's choice. Not some random murderer's choice.

Let's examine this. A woman gets stabbed and her baby dies in the womb. She says, "I was getting an abortion tomorrow anyway. No big deal."

Is that OK?

That’s stupid.

 

[Half-Life]

Doesn’t matter. Coal CEOs are not compelled to donate parts of their lungs to the miners they are killing. Drink drivers are not compelled to give their liver to some whose liver needs replacement due to that accident. If you poke someone’s eye out, they don’t get to take yours. If you give someone diabetes, like a Soft drink CEO, no one gets to take your pancreas.

With pregnancy, you deliberately chose to have sex knowing full well you could end up pregnant.

Oh. So pregnancy is a punishment for bad behavior now?
Also, I have a right to have sex and not give birth. These forced-birthers are really busy taking away access to birth control. So, hypocrites still don’t get my body, sorry.

Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control because you were too irresponsible to think first.

Emotional argument assuming facts not in evidence.

"Oh, I'm pregnant. I'm gonna punish the baby for my actions by killing it." See how crazy that is?

. No. It’s not a “baby.” It’s not punishment. And really, even if it were, the fetus still has no right to the woman’s body.

There are plenty of women who are pro-life. This kind of deflates the argument that it's "all about control of women." If it were, no woman would be pro-life. Period.

How can you say "the fetus has no right to the woman's body?" So the fetus can choose to be born in someone else's womb? What?

 

[bilby]

The question of personhood is irrelevant. Even if we were to declare that all fetuses are fully human and entitled to the exact same rights as an adult human being, abortion would still be morally justifiable on the basis of bodily autonomy.

If one of my kidneys could save your life, but I decline to give it to you, that's my call. There's nothing that compels me to allow you the use of my kidney, even if it will save your life, at little risk to mine.

Similarly, if my uterus* could keep you alive, but I decline to allow its use for that purpose, that's my call. There's nothing that compels me to allow someone else the use of my uterus, even if it will save their life, at little risk to mine.

It's as simple as that. A fetus is not a human being; But if it were, it would STILL not be morally acceptable to make a woman provide her uterus to that being against her will.

And by the way, carrying a pregnancy to term and then giving birth is NOT a 'little risk' - it's a big risk. Death in childbirth is a lot less common today than it was in the past, but it's still a real and present danger for every mother. Nobody - born or not - has the right to compel anyone to accept that risk against their will.
* I don't actually have one, but I understand that just over half the population do, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument, so I am comfortable with the hypothetical in this context.

But with the kidneys argument, you didn't do anything to make the other person have a kidney problem. With pregnancy, you deliberately chose to have sex

Given the existence of the crime of rape, that is not something you can claim with certainty.

knowing full well you could end up pregnant.

Given the woeful state of sex education, that too is not something you can claim with certainty.

Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control because you were too irresponsible to think first.

It rarely is. But why not? Even if someone was too irresponsible to think about the consequences of their actions; Even if they consented to sex, and were fully aware of the consequences; Why should that mean that they lose their bodily autonomy? If someone says to a friend "If you ever need a kidney, you can have one of mine", that doesn't in any way prevent them from choosing to renege on that deal once their friend has renal failure. You can't force them to go through with it - it's their kidney, and they can choose to refuse to let someone else use it for any reason or none.

"Oh, I'm pregnant. I'm gonna punish the baby for my actions by killing it." See how crazy that is?

That would be crazy. But as it's a pure strawman, and not something anyone has ever said or thought, it's of no value as an argument.

Nobody ever gets an abortion in order to punish the fetus. You would have to be crazy to imagine that they did.

A mole is a living thing, and is made of human cells. But I wouldn't think twice about killing it, for purely cosmetic reasons. If you go to a dermatologist and ask him to remove an unsightly mole, he won't bat an eyelid. But if you say you are doing this to punish the mole, he will probably refer you to a psychiatrist. A fetus is no more able to be punished than is a mole. It has the same level of awareness, and the same rights - ie none at all.

"I notice that everyone in favor of abortion is alive." - Ronald Reagan

I notice that everyone in favour of ANYTHING is alive. By the same logic, we can show that breathing causes cancer - everyone who ever got cancer was breathing at the time.

 

[Half-Life]

Given the existence of the crime of rape, that is not something you can claim with certainty.

knowing full well you could end up pregnant.

Given the woeful state of sex education, that too is not something you can claim with certainty.

Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control because you were too irresponsible to think first.

It rarely is. But why not? Even if someone was too irresponsible to think about the consequences of their actions; Even if they consented to sex, and were fully aware of the consequences; Why should that mean that they lose their bodily autonomy? If someone says to a friend "If you ever need a kidney, you can have one of mine", that doesn't in any way prevent them from choosing to renege on that deal once their friend has renal failure. You can't force them to go through with it - it's their kidney, and they can choose to refuse to let someone else use it for any reason or none.

"Oh, I'm pregnant. I'm gonna punish the baby for my actions by killing it." See how crazy that is?

That would be crazy. But as it's a pure strawman, and not something anyone has ever said or thought, it's of no value as an argument.

Nobody ever gets an abortion in order to punish the fetus. You would have to be crazy to imagine that they did.

A mole is a living thing, and is made of human cells. But I wouldn't think twice about killing it, for purely cosmetic reasons. If you go to a dermatologist and ask him to remove an unsightly mole, he won't bat an eyelid. But if you say you are doing this to punish the mole, he will probably refer you to a psychiatrist. A fetus is no more able to be punished than is a mole. It has the same level of awareness, and the same rights - ie none at all.

"I notice that everyone in favor of abortion is alive." - Ronald Reagan

I notice that everyone in favour of ANYTHING is alive. By the same logic, we can show that breathing causes cancer - everyone who ever got cancer was breathing at the time.

A mole doesn't have the potential to grow into a human being. You are being disingenuous. A fetus is perfectly capable of feeling pain, kicking in the womb, etc. etc.

This is the new logic of the left: We find a clump of cells on Mars. We found life!
We found a clump of cells in a woman. That's not life, guys! Ignore it!

 

[bilby]

Given the existence of the crime of rape, that is not something you can claim with certainty.

Given the woeful state of sex education, that too is not something you can claim with certainty.

It rarely is. But why not? Even if someone was too irresponsible to think about the consequences of their actions; Even if they consented to sex, and were fully aware of the consequences; Why should that mean that they lose their bodily autonomy? If someone says to a friend "If you ever need a kidney, you can have one of mine", that doesn't in any way prevent them from choosing to renege on that deal once their friend has renal failure. You can't force them to go through with it - it's their kidney, and they can choose to refuse to let someone else use it for any reason or none.

"Oh, I'm pregnant. I'm gonna punish the baby for my actions by killing it." See how crazy that is?

That would be crazy. But as it's a pure strawman, and not something anyone has ever said or thought, it's of no value as an argument.

Nobody ever gets an abortion in order to punish the fetus. You would have to be crazy to imagine that they did.

A mole is a living thing, and is made of human cells. But I wouldn't think twice about killing it, for purely cosmetic reasons. If you go to a dermatologist and ask him to remove an unsightly mole, he won't bat an eyelid. But if you say you are doing this to punish the mole, he will probably refer you to a psychiatrist. A fetus is no more able to be punished than is a mole. It has the same level of awareness, and the same rights - ie none at all.

"I notice that everyone in favor of abortion is alive." - Ronald Reagan

I notice that everyone in favour of ANYTHING is alive. By the same logic, we can show that breathing causes cancer - everyone who ever got cancer was breathing at the time.

A mole doesn't have the potential to grow into a human being. You are being disingenuous. A fetus is perfectly capable of feeling pain, kicking in the womb, etc. etc.

The potential to become something isn't the thing itself.

The logical conclusion of your argument makes you a mass murderer - every spermatozoon you have ever produced had the potential to grow into a human being. And you murdered them all, by refusing to provide the right conditions for that to occur.

And a fetus, before about twenty weeks (and the VAST majority of abortions take place before that point) has no more ability to feel pain than a mole - less, in fact, as the mole is attached directly to a developed nervous system.

This is the new logic of the left: We find a clump of cells on Mars. We found life!
We found a clump of cells in a woman. That's not life, guys! Ignore it!

That's not logic at all. It's YET ANOTHER straw man, which is a logical fallacy. Nobody is suggesting that a fetus is not life. Just that it's not a person. A clump of live human fetal cells without a brain is just a clump of cells. It's alive; but it's not sentient or aware, and there's no biological reason to treat it differently from a mole.

 

[Half-Life]

Given the existence of the crime of rape, that is not something you can claim with certainty.

Given the woeful state of sex education, that too is not something you can claim with certainty.

It rarely is. But why not? Even if someone was too irresponsible to think about the consequences of their actions; Even if they consented to sex, and were fully aware of the consequences; Why should that mean that they lose their bodily autonomy? If someone says to a friend "If you ever need a kidney, you can have one of mine", that doesn't in any way prevent them from choosing to renege on that deal once their friend has renal failure. You can't force them to go through with it - it's their kidney, and they can choose to refuse to let someone else use it for any reason or none.

That would be crazy. But as it's a pure strawman, and not something anyone has ever said or thought, it's of no value as an argument.

Nobody ever gets an abortion in order to punish the fetus. You would have to be crazy to imagine that they did.

A mole is a living thing, and is made of human cells. But I wouldn't think twice about killing it, for purely cosmetic reasons. If you go to a dermatologist and ask him to remove an unsightly mole, he won't bat an eyelid. But if you say you are doing this to punish the mole, he will probably refer you to a psychiatrist. A fetus is no more able to be punished than is a mole. It has the same level of awareness, and the same rights - ie none at all.

"I notice that everyone in favor of abortion is alive." - Ronald Reagan

I notice that everyone in favour of ANYTHING is alive. By the same logic, we can show that breathing causes cancer - everyone who ever got cancer was breathing at the time.

A mole doesn't have the potential to grow into a human being. You are being disingenuous. A fetus is perfectly capable of feeling pain, kicking in the womb, etc. etc.

The potential to become something isn't the thing itself.

The logical conclusion of your argument makes you a mass murderer - every spermatozoon you have ever produced had the potential to grow into a human being. And you murdered them all, by refusing to provide the right conditions for that to occur.

And a fetus, before about twenty weeks (and the VAST majority of abortions take place before that point) has no more ability to feel pain than a mole - less, in fact, as the mole is attached directly to a developed nervous system.

This is the new logic of the left: We find a clump of cells on Mars. We found life!
We found a clump of cells in a woman. That's not life, guys! Ignore it!

That's not logic at all. It's YET ANOTHER straw man, which is a logical fallacy. Nobody is suggesting that a fetus is not life. Just that it's not a person. A clump of live human fetal cells without a brain is just a clump of cells. It's alive; but it's not sentient or aware, and there's no biological reason to treat it differently from a mole.

Take a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh8rfHX-F54

It's basically the arguments of the left but by a little child. Look at all the comments about how mad people are about this. The right is getting fed up these days.