Can Roe v Wade be overturned?

[bilby]

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.

What the FUCK makes you imagine that you are qualified to teach anyone anything?

It's not your job to teach people a lesson. If you don't want to help, stand the fuck back, and shut the fuck up, while those of us who have not had our morality replaced by a set of rules that are two millennia out of date provide some assistance for those who have suffered misfortune.

That all goes double when their misfortune is the result of your ignorant meddling in the first place.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

What difference does that make? If a fertilized embryo is a person, as these new LAWS establish, then they have the right to live whether or not they are in a womb.

Your second part is goalpost moving. I am entirely in favor of abortion whenever necessary. I don't know of any pro choicers who are only for the first three months, though there are some who would limit the last trimester only.

 

[southernhybrid]

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.

Who brainwashed you to buy into such stupid shit? Republicans want to end most social programs, but they have learned to manipulate stupid evangelicals by waving the carrot of abortion and gun control in front of them. I have no idea why those two things, which aren't even mentioned in the Bible are so important to so many Christians.

It's the Republicans that have decreased money for education, for family planning and public health programs. It's the Republicans that have cut programs that help poor people. So some of your absurd claims sounds Orwellian to me. You need to lay off the Kool Aide for awhile.

Furthermore, you're judgmental attitude towards poor women who have several children sure doesn't sound like something that Jesus would like!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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."

If you actually cared about the fetus you would treat rape the same as any other unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's still assault with grievous bodily harm or something along those lines.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

My mother was blind, potentially inheritable. They waited until there was a treatment before they had me. And they didn't even have hormonal contraception.

And I'm in a similar boat, except without even a name to go on. Should we have avoided sex until she hit menopause?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Except you try to make it harder on them. Denying contraception, even information about contraception. You care more about making sex hurt them than you care about helping them.

 

[RVonse]

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.

You almost had me until I carefully thought this through.

The difference is that a kidney represents an existing organ that would have to be CUT (removed) out of you. Versus the woman who only gives use to her womb for the fetus. Thats HUGE difference. Your example is not remotely comparable.
Under the normal circumstances of birth, a female never has to give away any organs or parts of her body during the birth process.

And just for the record I dissagree with pretty much everyones view and take the libertarian's stance. IMO, the government should stay completely out of the abortion debate. And neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws making them illegal. It is a moral issue for individuals to decide for themselves.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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?

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

 

[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.

You almost had me until I carefully thought this through.

The difference is that a kidney represents an existing organ that would have to be CUT (removed) out of you. Versus the woman who only gives use to her womb for the fetus. Thats HUGE difference. Your example is not remotely comparable.
Under the normal circumstances of birth, a female never has to give away any organs or parts of her body during the birth process.

I disagree. Removal of a kidney is no more life threatening than giving birth; And the process of giving birth does include the removal of the placenta from the woman's body.

Also, the woman's uterus is being reserved solely for the use of another person during the pregnancy. It's not morally acceptable to demand her kidney, even if it will save a life, AND you will give it back to her in nine months time (which is surgically perfectly possible to do in principle).

My analogy is directly comparable in all important regards.

And just for the record I dissagree with pretty much everyones view and take the libertarian's stance. IMO, the government should stay completely out of the abortion debate. And neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws making them illegal. It is a moral issue for individuals to decide for themselves.

I agree with that.

 

[bilby]

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?

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

I agree, although given that such an attack would constitute at least 'assault occasioning grievous bodily harm', if not 'attempted murder' of the woman involved, I am not sure that it really matters. It's not as though the law says that such an attack is perfectly fine and dandy, and that no action can be taken against the assailant. I would imagine that the law would consider the death of a fetus to be a significant aggravating factor, and that this would be reflected in harsh sentencing, just as the inflicting of a permanent disfigurement or disability would be an aggravating circumstance.

Obviously, if the woman and/or her fetus were shot dead in Florida, that would be a different matter, and we would need to know the race of all parties involved in order to determine whether a crime had occurred at all. But stabbings are not protected under the US Constitution, even in Florida.

 

[RVonse]

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?

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

Civilized law is not suppose to allow the victim of the crime to be both judge and executioner. Because such biblical justice would take us back to the old testiment days when the remedy was an "eye for an eye".

I agree with Loren on this one. Or maybe even 6 months. But whatever was decided, the law must be the same for everyone for the same crime with no prejudices.

 

[RavenSky]

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

Sex does not equal consent to pregnancy.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

This is exactly the craptastic "argument" the anti-choicers wanted when THEY pushed through the nonsensical "fetus homicide" laws.

 

[RavenSky]

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?

STFU

I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion

Trigger warning:

Show

I was 17 when I was raped by a classmate. He was someone I knew, someone I trusted, but in the end, none of that mattered. I would not find out until eight months later that I was pregnant as a result of the assault. My daughter, Zoe, would grow inside of me with a fatal congenital birth defect that took away her ability to think, or emote, or connect to the world in all the fundamental ways that make a life worth living.

I was forced to give birth to the child of this rape, always connected in some way to the man who took so much from me. I lived in Alabama, which this week welcomed a draconian new abortion law, but the state’s politicians have never borne any ethical compunctions about controlling women and subverting their agency. To them, we are collateral in a game of politics, and the suffering they inflict matters very little ― if at all ― to them.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-abortion-law-rape_n_5cdc3627e4b09d94af53f471

 

[RavenSky]

Take a look at this video...
The right is getting fed up these days.

No.

You read this:

My unborn son was diagnosed with a birth defect known as a congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). I learned that there is only an initial 50 percent chance of survival in infants diagnosed with this defect. There was a large hole in my son’s diaphragm that enabled all the organs that are typically located in his abdomen to grow inside his tiny chest instead. Because of this, his heart was unable to develop properly and his lungs were deformed.

The extent of the damage inside his body took his chance of survival down to nearly zero and made surgery after birth impossible. I was left with only two options: continue with the pregnancy for four more months knowing that he would not survive or end the pregnancy. Due to legal restrictions on medical abortions in the state of Pennsylvania, I was given just seven short days to make the biggest and most difficult decision of my life.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abortion-motherhood_n_5c93dcb3e4b057f733081040

The "right" can go fuck themselves. They are a bunch of unprincipled hypocrites sucking Trump's dick.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

But we do treat it differently if the fetus is murdered by someone else while in the womb. It is granted the constitutional right to live.

Wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

To say that the people in the comments do not matter is not a very smart thing to say. They are calling for a civil war. The right is getting very fed up with the left's authoritarian views on things.

This is why I have zero patience for people like you, and feel perfectly fine with telling the entire "right" to go fuck themselves.

It is YOU who is the authoritarian. YOU who thinks you have ANY fucking authority to control MY body. YOU who is vomiting words trying to gaslight the rest of us. Well, it doesn't work, because your fucking threat of a "civil war" will NEVER give you authority over MY body.

Taking away free speech by banning conservative speakers on college campuses just so the students can stay indoctrinated with leftist dogma. Did you know Stanford banned Andrew Klavan from speaking because he is against Islamic terrorism? Yet, Stanford allowed a Muslim to speak there who wrote anti-semitic cartoons. Antifa is going around fighting people over free speech. Facebook is banning conservative commentators just for exercising free speech. You can go to jail for misgendering someone. If you watch right wing videos on youtube, they are full of "another civil war is coming soon. We must stop the leftist Nazi's" with thousands of likes. Things are really getting bad.

Blah blah blah... off topic and all bullshit. But you are certainly showing your true and intellectually dishonest colors.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

You obviously haven't read your own posts

 

[RavenSky]

Can't you see frozen embryos are not in any woman's womb? We are talking about protection of babies in the womb.

You just tipped your hand Half-Wit If it is "a baby" in the womb, it is "a baby" out of it too.

It is 100% obvious that you don't give ANY shits about the fetus nor babies and children. You are just a twisted authoritarian who thinks you can control women's bodies.

You can't!

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.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

But again, this discussion is about YOUR hypocrisy.

If it is "a baby" in the womb, it is "a baby" out of it to. And if it is "a baby" at 3 month's pre-born, it is "a baby" at 9 month's pre-born.