Can Roe v Wade be overturned?

[Sarpedon]

Correct, a fetus is not a person. Which is why we say the fetus dies instead of the person dies. No one who says a fetus is a person actually behaves as if it is, except when politically convenient. That's how you tell who's being honest.

Tell me, if the argument against abortion is that it isn't the fetus' fault that someone had sex, why don't the same people who make that argument also advocate for benefits for poor children? After all, it isn't their fault that their parents are poor. You protect fetus's from their mothers, but not actual born children. This is why you people aren't taken seriously by the thinking portion of society. You define a person into existence when it is convenient to you, and then ignore it once it is no longer useful.

Tell me, if a child needs an organ donation, could we force their fathers to donate to them? Or how about a stranger? How is that different from dragooning a woman into having a child they don't want?

Tell me, what will happen if the pro lifers get their way, and an embryo is defined as a person from conception. Obviously, fertility clinics would have to shut down. But what of their frozen embryos that already exist? Hundreds, thousands even? Will you conscript women into bearing them?

I suppose I should refrain from giving them ideas. After all, our arguments stemming from incest and rape exceptions caused them to eliminate those exceptions.

 

[Half-Life]

Correct, a fetus is not a person. Which is why we say the fetus dies instead of the person dies. No one who says a fetus is a person actually behaves as if it is, except when politically convenient. That's how you tell who's being honest.

Tell me, if the argument against abortion is that it isn't the fetus' fault that someone had sex, why don't the same people who make that argument also advocate for benefits for poor children? After all, it isn't their fault that their parents are poor. You protect fetus's from their mothers, but not actual born children. This is why you people aren't taken seriously by the thinking portion of society. You define a person into existence when it is convenient to you, and then ignore it once it is no longer useful.

Tell me, if a child needs an organ donation, could we force their fathers to donate to them? Or how about a stranger? How is that different from dragooning a woman into having a child they don't want?

Tell me, what will happen if the pro lifers get their way, and an embryo is defined as a person from conception. Obviously, fertility clinics would have to shut down. But what of their frozen embryos that already exist? Hundreds, thousands even? Will you conscript women into bearing them?

I suppose I should refrain from giving them ideas. After all, our arguments stemming from incest and rape exceptions caused them to eliminate those exceptions.

The definition changes with women too. If the woman is getting an abortion she says "it's just a fetus." But, if she wants to keep it she says, "I'm pregnant with my baby!" See the hypocrisy?

And there are benefits for poor children. But, at the same time it is the poor people who have the most kids, which is illogical. If you are poor, you should recognize that you can't afford to have child after child after child after child. Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to manage your own money and budget. I myself do not make a lot of money. Do I go out and have sex trying to bring 5 kids into this world? No, because I realize that would be irresponsible of me. Yet, the left wants us to coddle these families who can't think for themselves by giving them free money to raise their kids so they don't have to be responsible and provide for their own kids.

It is degeneracy at the highest level.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rape is only about 1% of the circumstances. The left loves to lie and make it seem like rapes account for 99% of pregnancies. And even if the woman is raped, there are plenty of women who voiced their opinions at rallies and protests saying, "I was raped and I love my child!" Being raped is very very evil, no doubt about it. But killing an innocent baby that had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT is evil as well.

If the fetus wants to live, it can do something about it and stop from getting aborted. Why should a fetus need the government to get involved to protect its lazy ass?

Regardless, this thread isn't about the morality of abortion, but the legality and potential pitfalls of trying to reverse or restrict the protections provided in Roe v Wade and other earlier and subsequent cases.

 

[Half-Life]

If the fetus wants to live, it can do something about it and stop from getting aborted. Why should a fetus need the government to get involved to protect its lazy ass?

That might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How can a fetus do something like that? They can't! The government is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is why the fetus is protected because it's life. Government is involved in these areas.

Regardless, this thread isn't about the morality of abortion, but the legality and potential pitfalls of trying to reverse or restrict the protections provided in Roe v Wade and other earlier and subsequent cases.

I hope all abortions become illegal. Just ask yourself this question, "Am I glad I wasn't aborted?"
The answer will almost always be "Yes," unless you suffer from severe depression.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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?

Stop with your dumb hypotheticals already, they're pointless and mostly off topic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the fetus wants to live, it can do something about it and stop from getting aborted. Why should a fetus need the government to get involved to protect its lazy ass?

That might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How can a fetus do something like that? They can't!

They can't because liberal tree hugging hippies like you are programming fetuses into thinking they are defenseless. So they just sit around awaiting protection from BIG government to protect them. Heck! You have any idea how many of them are complete fuck ups and don't even bother to adhere to the wall of the Uterus?! Probably expect big government to do that for them too.

Regardless, this thread isn't about the morality of abortion, but the legality and potential pitfalls of trying to reverse or restrict the protections provided in Roe v Wade and other earlier and subsequent cases.

I hope all abortions become illegal. Just ask yourself this question, "Am I glad I wasn't aborted?"
The answer will almost always be "Yes," unless you suffer from severe depression.

I suppose the other question is 'Did you ever ask to be born?' Regardless, your posts are off topic.

 

[Worldtraveller]

If the fetus wants to live, it can do something about it and stop from getting aborted. Why should a fetus need the government to get involved to protect its lazy ass?

That might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How can a fetus do something like that? They can't! The government is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is why the fetus is protected because it's life. Government is involved in these areas.

Regardless, this thread isn't about the morality of abortion, but the legality and potential pitfalls of trying to reverse or restrict the protections provided in Roe v Wade and other earlier and subsequent cases.

I hope all abortions become illegal. Just ask yourself this question, "Am I glad I wasn't aborted?"
The answer will almost always be "Yes," unless you suffer from severe depression.

Actually, I'm not glad you weren't aborted.

Glad I could help.

 

[bilby]

People will think twice about sex for fun if they realize they'd be stuck with the baby.

Finally, an honest statement of your objections to abortion. You don't like the idea that people have sex for fun.

Well, I'm sorry to break this to you, but people have NEVER thought twice about having sex for fun. Despite millennia of uptight authoritarian priests making (and even carrying out) all kinds of dire threats, people like to fuck, for fun; And they will ALWAYS fuck, purely for the fun of it.

No matter how many women you condemn to bear unwanted children, or to be stoned to death, or to be burned at the stake; No matter how many unwanted children you allow to suffer the indignity of being abandoned at birth, or abused by parents who never wanted them; No matter how much you thump your holy book and threaten eternal damnation - People have always had, and will always have sex JUST FOR FUN.

And nothing has ever caused them to think twice - at least, not in significant numbers.

You are making people's lives miserable in an attempt to prevent the unpreventable, to stop the unstoppable, and to eliminate a practice that is not only ubiquitous, but harmless.

That's about the most vile and immoral position it is possible for a person to take.

You disgust me.

 

[Half-Life]

People will think twice about sex for fun if they realize they'd be stuck with the baby.

Finally, an honest statement of your objections to abortion. You don't like the idea that people have sex for fun.

Well, I'm sorry to break this to you, but people have NEVER thought twice about having sex for fun. Despite millennia of uptight authoritarian priests making (and even carrying out) all kinds of dire threats, people like to fuck, for fun; And they will ALWAYS fuck, purely for the fun of it.

No matter how many women you condemn to bear unwanted children, or to be stoned to death, or to be burned at the stake; No matter how many unwanted children you allow to suffer the indignity of being abandoned at birth, or abused by parents who never wanted them; No matter how much you thump your holy book and threaten eternal damnation - People have always had, and will always have sex JUST FOR FUN.

And nothing has ever caused them to think twice - at least, not in significant numbers.

You are making people's lives miserable in an attempt to prevent the unpreventable, to stop the unstoppable, and to eliminate a practice that is not only ubiquitous, but harmless.

That's about the most vile and immoral position it is possible for a person to take.

You disgust me.

I understand people will have sex for fun. But, it's not right to treat babies as disposable. Some people have sex for fun and they do not get pregnant. But, for the ones who do get pregnant, it was a risk you took. Take responsibility. That's all. Arguing that it's better to kill the baby than have it grow up and be neglected is sickening to me. Put the baby up for adoption. Like many people have stated, "I am happy I was adopted instead of killed."

 

[bilby]

People will think twice about sex for fun if they realize they'd be stuck with the baby.

Finally, an honest statement of your objections to abortion. You don't like the idea that people have sex for fun.

Well, I'm sorry to break this to you, but people have NEVER thought twice about having sex for fun. Despite millennia of uptight authoritarian priests making (and even carrying out) all kinds of dire threats, people like to fuck, for fun; And they will ALWAYS fuck, purely for the fun of it.

No matter how many women you condemn to bear unwanted children, or to be stoned to death, or to be burned at the stake; No matter how many unwanted children you allow to suffer the indignity of being abandoned at birth, or abused by parents who never wanted them; No matter how much you thump your holy book and threaten eternal damnation - People have always had, and will always have sex JUST FOR FUN.

And nothing has ever caused them to think twice - at least, not in significant numbers.

You are making people's lives miserable in an attempt to prevent the unpreventable, to stop the unstoppable, and to eliminate a practice that is not only ubiquitous, but harmless.

That's about the most vile and immoral position it is possible for a person to take.

You disgust me.

I understand people will have sex for fun.

But you don't approve. And you should approve, because it's harmless and it's fun.

But, it's not right to treat babies as disposable.

Nobody is treating babies as disposable. Some people are treating fetuses as disposable, and that's OK, because fetuses ARE disposable - in fact, most don't survive, even in the absence of abortion. Most fertilized human ova do NOT develop into babies.

Some people have sex for fun and they do not get pregnant. But, for the ones who do get pregnant, it was a risk you took. Take responsibility. That's all.

Sure. The risk was, that you might need to make the choice to either have an abortion, or have a child. It's not a huge risk in the former case. Abortions are unpleasant, but not generally life threatening. I would certainly strongly recommend that people use contraception instead of abortion, because it's less risky for the woman, and a lot less hassle too.

Indeed, when people are universally provided with good quality sex education, they rarely need abortions - in western Europe abortions are rare, because people are taught at school how to have sex for fun without getting pregnant. Unwanted pregnancies are best avoided, via sex education. Abortion is only necessary where that education fails, or in the tiny number of cases where even correct use of contraception is ineffective, or in cases such as rape, where the victim has no control of the situation.

Arguing that it's better to kill the baby

Nobody except you is discussing babies. Or killing. You are making a serious category error here. A fetus is no more a baby than is an unsightly mole.

The potential to become a thing is not the same as the thing.

than have it grow up and be neglected is sickening to me. Put the baby up for adoption. Like many people have stated, "I am happy I was adopted instead of killed."

Nobody is killed in an abortion. They simply never exist - just like the billions of "people" you have prevented from ever existing every day since you reached puberty.

That people are happy to be alive is not a reason to accuse you of mass-murder, despite your apparent desire to claim that crime as your own.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rape is only about 1% of the circumstances. The left loves to lie and make it seem like rapes account for 99% of pregnancies. And even if the woman is raped, there are plenty of women who voiced their opinions at rallies and protests saying, "I was raped and I love my child!" Being raped is very very evil, no doubt about it. But killing an innocent baby that had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT is evil as well.

You fail to understand the issue. We know rape is a small percentage of unwanted pregnancies, nobody's pretending otherwise. The problem is the case of rape exposes the problem with your argument. If it was rape she didn't choose to risk pregnancy, your attitude of punishment makes no sense.

And if you permit abortion in case of rape you are clearly showing it's about punishment, not about the fetus.

You've been hurt in an auto accident. You deliberately chose to drive knowing full well an accident could happen. Medical treatment shouldn't be used as a way to evade responsibility for your actions.

As for the pedestrians who get hurt--if they really were pedestrians they wouldn't have been hit.

Not the same thing. People have to drive to their jobs. It's unavoidable. Don't you agree that if people were responsible and waited until marriage to have sex, abortion would become less of a problem? But, these days people are encouraged to have sex willy nilly for fun with no consequences because they can just get an abortion if they get pregnant. This is why the right is getting fed up. No one has personal responsibility anymore. The abortion laws are basically about personal responsibility and thinking before your actions. People will think twice about sex for fun if they realize they'd be stuck with the baby.

1) Whether they have to do it or not has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

2) It's possible to have a job with no driving. I drove a total of 0 miles for my job in 2018, I have been on-site 3 times in 5 years--and one of those was basically a job interview. (I'm not counting the one time I dropped off a piece of hardware and picked up another when I was driving past anyway, that was purely a matter of convenience because I was going a mile away anyway for personal reasons. We would have used UPS or one of their delivery trucks otherwise.)

3) I don't see anyone being encouraged to have sex. People have sex because they want to have sex.

4) Your argument is clearly based on punishment rather than upon the fetus. This only makes sense if having non-reproductive sex is something wrongful. Most of us do not believe it's a wrongful act.

5) You say wait until marriage--what about those who have genetic issues that would make a baby a risky proposition, or those who have health issues that would make pregnancy a risky proposition? Should they remain celibate forever? In case you haven't realized it that is prone to twisting minds.

6) You say wait until marriage--never mind that even in the old days an awful lot of couples didn't wait. It's just it was hushed up and they quickly married.

7) You say wait until marriage--but the reality is that no sex until marriage tends to result in early marriages which are very often bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look up the Andrew Klavan story. He literally got banned from speaking at Stanford because he speaks out against Islamic terrorism and how he doesn't want it in the U.S. Stanford said that they feel like he offends the Muslim students. HOWEVER, Stanford allowed a Muslim speaker at the school who made ANTI-SEMITIC cartoons and they got posted around campus. Why didn't Stanford ban the Muslim? Because the left hates Christians and loves Muslims.

I didn't dig in depth but I did look--that's why I concluded it was about hate speech.

"Hate speech" has become "whatever the left disagrees with." Even Obama and Hilary couldn't muster up the courage to say "Christians." They said, "Easter worshipers." Christians are getting tired of this disrespect of trying to be silenced while Muslims get free reign no matter what they do or say.

No. Hate speech is about saying false and derogatory things about groups. And I've never heard the term "Easter worshipers". And it's not the majority of Christians that are engaging in hate speech. Be civil, quit trying to cram your religion down our throats and you'll find the silencing goes away.

And I note you didn't even address the sort of situation I mentioned. That's the sort of thing that gets you "silenced".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They only get charged with murder because the pro-lifers noted that one of the reasons behind Roe vs Wade is the law didn't treat that as murder. The fetal murder laws are an attempt to undermine Roe vs Wade.

So you agree that if the fetus dies in the womb due to a stabbing, the person shouldn't be charged with murder?

So long as it's before the 7th month, yes, I would not vote to convict them of murder.

 

[Half-Life]

They only get charged with murder because the pro-lifers noted that one of the reasons behind Roe vs Wade is the law didn't treat that as murder. The fetal murder laws are an attempt to undermine Roe vs Wade.

So you agree that if the fetus dies in the womb due to a stabbing, the person shouldn't be charged with murder?

So long as it's before the 7th month, yes, I would not vote to convict them of murder.

So, you just opened the door for people to be able to kill the woman's baby. Suppose the husband doesn't want the child and kicks the mother in the stomach. Every time she gets pregnant, someone can come along and say "I don't want you to be pregnant" and punch the stomach. We need these laws to protect the baby.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So long as it's before the 7th month, yes, I would not vote to convict them of murder.

So, you just opened the door for people to be able to kill the woman's baby. Suppose the husband doesn't want the child and kicks the mother in the stomach. Every time she gets pregnant, someone can come along and say "I don't want you to be pregnant" and punch the stomach. We need these laws to protect the baby.

He is putting her life at risk, and hurting her, all to try to prevent her from doing as she wishes with her own body. Of course he deserves punishment. Maybe imprisonment for life, or another very serious punishment. It does not mean he means punishment for murder (then again, he deserves the same punishment regardless of whether he succeeds in killing the fetus, as long as the intent and means are the same).

Leaving aside desert, even if you criminalize abortion, you do not need to equate it with murder in order to punish such people. For example, over here, abortion is criminalized. But killing fetuses is not the same as murder. It's another crime.

Also, in that case, the person in need of protection is the woman. If someone kills a few embryos in a lab, no one is in need of protection - unless he kills someone else's embryos without authorization, etc.

 

[Worldtraveller]

These bills, politicians, and discussions get me so pissed off at all the sanctimonious "what about the babyyyy" bullshit.

Hey Half Life, you wanna know why? Because my wife and I spent years being very careful, and doing everything we could to not get her pregnant. First off, we didn't want kids, and unlike all the forced birth assholes, it seems like it would be a bad thing to have a kid that wasn't wanted. More importantly, if she got pregnant, she would have likely fucking died if she was forced to try to bring it to term.

Are you going to tell me I shouldn't have been allowed to have sex with my wife? All because your religious delusions and ignorance of biology make you think that a blastula is a fucking baby? The forum rules prevent me from saying what I really think of you and your kind.

 

[Sarpedon]

The definition changes with women too. If the woman is getting an abortion she says "it's just a fetus." But, if she wants to keep it she says, "I'm pregnant with my baby!" See the hypocrisy?

And there are benefits for poor children. But, at the same time it is the poor people who have the most kids, which is illogical. If you are poor, you should recognize that you can't afford to have child after child after child after child. Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to manage your own money and budget. I myself do not make a lot of money. Do I go out and have sex trying to bring 5 kids into this world? No, because I realize that would be irresponsible of me. Yet, the left wants us to coddle these families who can't think for themselves by giving them free money to raise their kids so they don't have to be responsible and provide for their own kids.

It is degeneracy at the highest level.

Typical conservative: hatred of the poor, blaming them for their problems, while enacting policies to make their problems worse, telling everyone they deserve it.

In response to your feeble, hypothetical rebuttal: It is true that some women talk about the unborn as if they were babies. This is not as significant as assigning it legal protections. Calling something a thing is speech, mere words. Enacting legislation is an action, not mere words. Like most conservatives, you confuse the two. You can call what's in you what you like, depending on your mood; it changes nothing. To enact a law to give something that is not a person the rights of a person is to erode the rights of people. You must understand this.

Also, I note you didn't address my other objections. You expect us to entertain your absurd hypotheticals, but you won't address my more reasonable objections based on taking your position to their logical conclusions:

What will you do with all the "people" who are frozen in tubes in fertility clinics, who need someone to bear them? If a woman can be forced to bear a fetus conceived inside her against her will, will you force other women to bear these 'people?' Will you tax unwilling people to pay for willing surrogates? I suspect, like most conservatives, you don't REALLY think of a fertilized embryo as a person, and so you've never bothered to come up with a plan to save all these thousands of 'people.'

If a woman can be forced to donate a considerable portion of her health and lifespan to a fetus, can a man be forced to make an equivalent sacrifice, as in my example of organ donation?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yes, life is PRECIOUS, but don't expect me to pay taxes for scummy poor people to raise their young 'uns. Let's handcuff 'em to their maternity beds, 'cause they gotta have their babies. After that -- get a job. What? They don't share my mystical belief in the soul and my definition of personhood? Fuck em. 'Cause Christians rule. We're the boss, applesauce. And no abortafacients, neither! My preacher warned me about them.

 

[Half-Life]

Yes, life is PRECIOUS, but don't expect me to pay taxes for scummy poor people to raise their young 'uns. Let's handcuff 'em to their maternity beds, 'cause they gotta have their babies. After that -- get a job. What? They don't share my mystical belief in the soul and my definition of personhood? Fuck em. 'Cause Christians rule. We're the boss, applesauce. And no abortafacients, neither! My preacher warned me about them.

There's a fine line between helping and coddling. We want to help poor children because it's not their fault. But at the same time, it doesn't teach the parents any lesson if they can just keep having kids and getting free handouts. The Democrats have no problem with this because they want the poor to stay poor and uneducated. Republicans are trying to come up with better ideas.

 

[Half-Life]

The definition changes with women too. If the woman is getting an abortion she says "it's just a fetus." But, if she wants to keep it she says, "I'm pregnant with my baby!" See the hypocrisy?

And there are benefits for poor children. But, at the same time it is the poor people who have the most kids, which is illogical. If you are poor, you should recognize that you can't afford to have child after child after child after child. Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to manage your own money and budget. I myself do not make a lot of money. Do I go out and have sex trying to bring 5 kids into this world? No, because I realize that would be irresponsible of me. Yet, the left wants us to coddle these families who can't think for themselves by giving them free money to raise their kids so they don't have to be responsible and provide for their own kids.

It is degeneracy at the highest level.

Typical conservative: hatred of the poor, blaming them for their problems, while enacting policies to make their problems worse, telling everyone they deserve it.

In response to your feeble, hypothetical rebuttal: It is true that some women talk about the unborn as if they were babies. This is not as significant as assigning it legal protections. Calling something a thing is speech, mere words. Enacting legislation is an action, not mere words. Like most conservatives, you confuse the two. You can call what's in you what you like, depending on your mood; it changes nothing. To enact a law to give something that is not a person the rights of a person is to erode the rights of people. You must understand this.

Also, I note you didn't address my other objections. You expect us to entertain your absurd hypotheticals, but you won't address my more reasonable objections based on taking your position to their logical conclusions:

What will you do with all the "people" who are frozen in tubes in fertility clinics, who need someone to bear them? If a woman can be forced to bear a fetus conceived inside her against her will, will you force other women to bear these 'people?' Will you tax unwilling people to pay for willing surrogates? I suspect, like most conservatives, you don't REALLY think of a fertilized embryo as a person, and so you've never bothered to come up with a plan to save all these thousands of 'people.'

If a woman can be forced to donate a considerable portion of her health and lifespan to a fetus, can a man be forced to make an equivalent sacrifice, as in my example of organ donation?

Can't you see frozen embryos are not in any woman's womb? We are talking about protection of babies in the womb. And most people who are pro-choice are only pro-choice for the first 3 months. After that, they agree with no abortions. So for 6 months, the woman has no control over her body, despite you guys saying it's all about giving women control over their bodies.