Roe Versus Wade Overturned

[Nah]

I guess I misinterpreted who your post was for given that it came directly after mine. Apologies.

Ah, don't worry about it, it's fine. Sometimes I think that there's something about the way I type/talk that makes me a bit prone to being misunderstood, this is hardly the first time lol

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't want to get too much into the politicians bit since that may or may not be a bit off-topic, but I will just say this for now:

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans give a **** about the people of this country, they haven't for decades, if they ever did at all. There are no political parties worth voting for in the U.S.


this is really not the point I was making and I don't know why this is how you interpreted it

I hate it but politics is indeed behind all of it because politicians make the laws.

So it's become red vs blue with moderates in-between each but being forced into column A or B and you get some things you approve of and a couple you look the other way but like it or not Biden isn't getting it done and Trump will likely win reelection so getting prepared for a world without Roe is prudent

 

[Alicorn]

Actually, it seems like there're bigger cultural and social differences in the rural communities than in the big cities. Sure, cities have larger populations, but most of them generally live within the same culture, which is likely the reason a good majority of them tend to vote on the same policies. In contrast, the culture will vary wildly across different locations and smaller, but more isolated, communities (and thus the reason why the Electoral College is even a thing). The problem with Democrats is that they just try to curry favor to those sheer numbers in major population centers, while being completely tone-deaf to the needs of people in more rural areas.

That isn't true at all, cities have many cultural and social classes within them. This is why makes running as a Democrat so difficult you have to deal with a lot more social, class and economic issues. The Democratic party suffers from having a big tent its made up of collations of people with different interest and needs.


Rural voters tend not to have that many social differences making them easier to cater to. It also helps that internet connectivity is a problem in rural areas and newspapers are dying out turning many towns into news deserts. This allows News Networks like Fox news to fill the void of news, which people can't tell if they are getting actual news or not. This rampant disinformation leads to voters being less informed about issues impacting the country.

So these misinformed voters get worked up and then start voting for politicians who tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear. You can see this in the anti-abortion debate calling something that is barely a fetus a baby to invoke emotions. Using a "heart beat" at six weeks to determine viability. All these are tricks used to manipulate and mobilize voters against an issue.

 

[kiteinthesky]

The right wing (who are the ones who oppose abortion) need to learn that life isn't fair sometimes and that just because a human was conceived does not mean it has the right to exist. That right is only granted when a human is born. Until it's born, the mother and only the mother gets to decide whether it lives or dies. It's the responsibility of women to make that decision, not anyone else.

But that's me pretending we live in a world where people respect the rights of others, so

So these misinformed voters get worked up and then start voting for politicians who tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear. You can see this in the anti-abortion debate calling something that is barely a fetus a baby to invoke emotions. Using a "heart beat" at six weeks to determine viability. All these are tricks used to manipulate and mobilize voters against an issue.

Who gets to be the one to tell them that by that logic, teratomas (reproductive tumors) are viable and have to be allowed to fester unencumbered to the point where it kills the individual regardless of their gender? Meaning they will kill men too?

 

[Alicorn]

I think a lot of the anti abortion argument has always been misguided. The fact that random people are going to bat for something that does not concern them. Like seriously why would someone in Ohio care about what a woman in Texas is doing? Its nosey and intrusive not to mention misogynistic that some random guy is telling a woman that she has to carry the baby to term not knowing situation or if she was assaulted or can't afford the medical cost of having a baby.

Speaking of medical cost its funny how a lot of these pro life advocates don't want to pay the woman's medical bills and are against universal childcare. The GOP voted against universal childcare and the Child tax credit that kept children out of poverty. These actions more than prove that the GOP only cares about women when its politically necessary to rally the evangelical base and then discard women afterwards not caring how she is going to care for the baby, not caring if she was a victim of sexual assault or incest, not caring if she was in school or her living situation.

 

[Nah]

Report: Supreme Court draft suggests Roe could be overturned

A draft opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a Politico report released Monday.

apnews.com

It's a leaked document, but there's little reason to believe that the decision contained within is inaccurate

 

[Alicorn]

Report: Supreme Court draft suggests Roe could be overturned

A draft opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a Politico report released Monday.

apnews.com

It's a leaked document, but there's little reason to believe that the decision contained within is inaccurate

It has been verified to be real. So yeah the US Supreme Court needs to be reined in, it makes no sense that a court should have so much power yet so little accountability.

 

[Sucumbio]

It has been verified to be real. So yeah the US Supreme Court needs to be reined in, it makes no sense that a court should have so much power yet so little accountability.

It's the makeup of the court that skews left or right not the institution itself. The people have spoken. Once the new Justice is appointed things like this will go back to being tied (which makes it more difficult for all decisions but especially ones with such a division). That said I'm very disheartened to hear rvw may (most likely will) be struck. It's going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people and it's really quite a shame. I feel as if more and more people will begin to segregate themselves even at a personal cost to avoid living in places that don't match their core values. I see population density shifting en masse as younger generations are forced into these moral dichotomies. Especially considering how many more companies have embraced remote working.

 

[Alicorn]

It frightens me because this is only the beginning, if they can strike down Roe V. Wade then there is no telling what else they will strike down. This is going to impact the country for decades and I feel that the Conservatives aren't going to like the aftermath of their win.

As for the population shift it might as well happen and it will be bad for red states like mine. But I guess the old Avatar staying is true.

"Only when we reach our lowest point do we experience great change"

 

[Sucumbio]

It frightens me because this is only the beginning, if they can strike down Roe V. Wade then there is no telling what else they will strike down. This is going to impact the country for decades and I feel that the Conservatives aren't going to like the aftermath of their win.

As for the population shift it might as well happen and it will be bad for red states like mine. But I guess the old Avatar staying is true.

"Only when we reach our lowest point do we experience great change"

I'm also in a Red State... The state that is central to this, Mississippi. It's likely going to erode the delicate nature of things to the point of serious consequence. I'm on the more "liberal" Gulf Coast but even here things tend to unravel fast just 15 miles inland. People who need abortions will have to drive a thousand miles. It's ridiculous.

And you're not alone in your thinking this is the tip of the iceberg. Biden has said as much and many left leaning pundits agree. The eroding of personal freedoms comes at a great cost and leads to a truly authoritarian society.

 

[Alicorn]

Texas for me, its why I feel so strongly about this. Abbot only cares about power and his willingness to sign a bill to make it harder for women to get an abortion only shows how far he is willing to go to stay in power.

Texas is a big place everything is so spread out so it would take a lot of time and money for women to get an abortion and this is something not a lot of women have especially those who are poor.
I can only hope the Dems take the Senate because its been clear for decades that the GOP is just a party with no morals and the leaked document proved it. First it will be Roe and then it will be something else. Because the Supreme Court thinks its invincible and given how the deck is stacked they might as well be.

 

[Alicorn]

Just in by a 6-3 ruling Roe versus Wade has been overturned.

 

[Sucumbio]

Just in by a 6-3 ruling Roe versus Wade has been overturned.

Oh ****. Heh ... This is gonna get ugly. I hope the way in which pro choice States battle this will work out somehow but life just got seriously more complicated. Now there's much stronger potential for population decline among more affluent Americans over fear of accidentally breeding. Meanwhile the poorer population will explode with kids and the welfare system will have to expand. This isn't good at all.

 

[SneakyLink]

Oh ****. Heh ... This is gonna get ugly. I hope the way in which pro choice States battle this will work out somehow but life just got seriously more complicated. Now there's much stronger potential for population decline among more affluent Americans over fear of accidentally breeding. Meanwhile the poorer population will explode with kids and the welfare system will have to expand. This isn't good at all.

Yeah it’s definitely going to get worse.

The 231 Supreme Court documentation has Justice Thomas state that he wants to overturn Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergfell ASAP.

To sum up the three mentioned cases:


Griswold: Birth control with no prescription or outside marriage
Lawrence: being LGBTQ without being a criminal for it
Obergfell: Same sex marriage

I know this particular thread is dedicated to Roe v Wade but I wanted to mention this as it was in the documentation for Roe v Wade.

 

[Alicorn]

The Justices stated that Roe V Wade was settle during the confirmation hearings of Amy. They then went and overturned it. Meaning they lied to the public and their word can no longer be trusted. The Court is unbalanced they can act this way because they are accountable to no one.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah it’s definitely going to get worse.

The 231 Supreme Court documentation has Justice Thomas state that he wants to overturn Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergfell ASAP.

To sum up the three mentioned cases:


Griswold: Birth control with no prescription or outside marriage
Lawrence: being LGBTQ without being a criminal for it
Obergfell: Same sex marriage

I know this particular thread is dedicated to Roe v Wade but I wanted to mention this as it was in the documentation for Roe v Wade.

Yeah I mean this definitely leads to bigger ramifications despite today's ruling including opinions from some of the consenting explicitly saying "this only affects abortion."

But obviously this is a woman's rights issue and literally women in America just got set back huge. This isn't going to bode well. Unless this is all a clever ploy to cement equal rights in better way somehow. I'm not a lawyer so it's kinda beyond me at that point.

But the killer phrase in the ruling today is as follows.

"And as the Court has stated, the “goal of preventing abortion” does not constitute “invidiously discriminatory animus” against women."

Wow. Just.... Ugh.

Today is a bad day for women. There's no way to undo today unless the people truly start to engage in politics because this is one of those rights that is taken mostly for granted like gun ownership and yet poof. Gone.

 

[StoicPhantom]

So did anyone actually read Alito's opinion or did they just make up their minds based on their views on abortion?

To summarize, Alito is saying that the original ruling on Roe forcibly took out of the realm of democracy and into the hands of a small group of unelected men the power decide the legality of abortion and what restrictions, if any. And he thinks that was an egregious error by the court and wants to return that power back to the people. Because if the country is split on the key points needed to even have a debate, how is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to just decide what is best for everyone?

And uh, yeah? How can people unironically argue that overturning Roe violates democracy in defense of Roe, which violates democracy? This is literally the same process that decided Roe in the first place and somehow it is only undemocratic when it is going in reverse? Like, let me spell this out very clearly:

A group of unelected justices makes a ruling on Roe using their rightful authority: ok.

A group of unelected justices reverse the ruling on Roe using their rightful authority: bad and undemocratic.

Do you see the contradiction?

This isn't even an abortion issue and more about the role of the Supreme Court. They're supposed to be deciding based on what the Constitution actually says and not legislating from the bench. At no point ever was it decided that they were to act as official tie-breakers. If you believe in democracy then this shouldn't be remotely controversial at all. If you make the argument that unelected justices shouldn't decide abortion rights, you are literally arguing against the original ruling on Roe.

If you want abortion rights enshrined in law, you need to get actual legislation passed so courts can uphold it. Whining about the Supreme Court doing their job is not productive in this regard. If the country is too split to pass Federal laws then this is where state legislation becomes important. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court is trying to do here.

Blue states are fine. Even a lot of red states don't have a complete ban on abortion: the law that ushered in Roe still made allowances for medical emergencies. Exactly how many in this topic are even going to be affected by an abortion ban or live in an area where that is likely? And if you are arguing that you want to subvert majority will in those red states for your own beliefs, that is known as self-righteousness and is one of the reasons why our system has these protections. The abortion debate isn't settled and likely won't have a majority consensus nationally, so deciding by state is the only real solution.

Today is a bad day for women.

Psst, many women also oppose abortion.

 

[Sucumbio]

So did anyone actually read Alito's opinion or did they just make up their minds based on their views on abortion?

To summarize, Alito is saying that the original ruling on Roe forcibly took out of the realm of democracy and into the hands of a small group of unelected men the power decide the legality of abortion and what restrictions, if any. And he thinks that was an egregious error by the court and wants to return that power back to the people. Because if the country is split on the key points needed to even have a debate, how is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to just decide what is best for everyone?

And uh, yeah? How can people unironically argue that overturning Roe violates democracy in defense of Roe, which violates democracy? This is literally the same process that decided Roe in the first place and somehow it is only undemocratic when it is going in reverse? Like, let me spell this out very clearly:

A group of unelected justices makes a ruling on Roe using their rightful authority: ok.

A group of unelected justices reverse the ruling on Roe using their rightful authority: bad and undemocratic.

Do you see the contradiction?

This isn't even an abortion issue and more about the role of the Supreme Court. They're supposed to be deciding based on what the Constitution actually says and not legislating from the bench. At no point ever was it decided that they were to act as official tie-breakers. If you believe in democracy then this shouldn't be remotely controversial at all. If you make the argument that unelected justices shouldn't decide abortion rights, you are literally arguing against the original ruling on Roe.

If you want abortion rights enshrined in law, you need to get actual legislation passed so courts can uphold it. Whining about the Supreme Court doing their job is not productive in this regard. If the country is too split to pass Federal laws then this is where state legislation becomes important. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court is trying to do here.

Blue states are fine. Even a lot of red states don't have a complete ban on abortion: the law that ushered in Roe still made allowances for medical emergencies. Exactly how many in this topic are even going to be affected by an abortion ban or live in an area where that is likely? And if you are arguing that you want to subvert majority will in those red states for your own beliefs, that is known as self-righteousness and is one of the reasons why our system has these protections. The abortion debate isn't settled and likely won't have a majority consensus nationally, so deciding by state is the only real solution.


Psst, many women also oppose abortion.

I read all of it... and I agree this may be a step towards a larger goal of revisiting "rights protected" by the Constitution with the intent to return to the States or by Virtue of Congress to implement laws to address these concerns.

The problem I have is the personal freedom to make a choice has been decided for an entire gender and yet it was stated that's somehow not discrimination. Why because men can't get pregnant so the question isn't covered by Liberty? That's irritating to even type let alone accept as true. I don't care what life was like during the founding, the Constitution has to be able to adapt unforeseeable circumstances such as women not actually being less than men and slaves actually not being property.

 

[Nah]

Roe possibly being the result of an "undemocratic" process is really not important in the face of the objectively wrong decision being made. The right thing to do, even if not via the best means>>>>the wrong thing to do being done via the established process. This was never about democracy or "returning that power to the people" lol.

A lot of people still hold onto this weird ass idea that the US Constitution is a perfect document made by some of the greatest people to ever exist and that it could handle anything that comes the country's way. It's really not. It was written by a bunch of dudes who were just as human as the rest of us, and they straight-up lied in the Declaration of Independence when they wrote "all men are created equal". What they really meant was "all rich, white, cishet men are equal".

And it's not like the anti-abortion crowd will stop here. When you're anti-abortion, it's not good enough for you until abortion is illegal literally everywhere.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Smart move. Split Congress, split Senate. Democrats in Congress will push legislation attempting to nullify the decision, Republicans will block it. Senate can try to impeach the conservative justices for breach of judicial oath with respect to partiality, however polarization between both parties has been so incredibly partial that during June 23rds reconfirmation of fed chairman Jerome Powell, no one was listening to his views on controlling inflation and were instead attempting to insert their own thoughts on how macroeconomics should be applied to run America.

RGB. Bless her soul should have stepped down during the Obama administration. Similarly believe that Feinstein ought to step down as well. I think that the democrats have had an issue with cleaning out their own house of disingenuous actors and ridding themselves of bad actors who overindulge in accepting lobby campaign donation funds which compromise their own integrity when it comes to pushing for idealistic causes like forgiving student debt when major credit institutions like Capital One, American Express, Visa, Discover, and Mastercard give 2/3s or more than 2/3s of total campaign donations to Democrats over Republican candidates.

 

[Sucumbio]

I hope you're right #HBC | Acrostic because I feel like this guy:

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Sucumbio Yeah I'm not sure what the conservative justices are thinking. Essentially ruling that banning abortions have nothing to do with stripping women of autonomy granted under the fourteenth amendment is insane. Citing that the historical basis under common law was unjustified in the 1800s has as much credence as Putin invading Ukraine on the historical basis that it used to be part of the USSR. And if the courts aren't held to precedent in previous rulings (stare decisis) essentially means that these radicalized justices could go on a war path and try to recreate their delusional paradise of a 1950s America in a 2020s world. The fact that they just got done loosening gun control laws to no longer require a reason for having one when going to purchase one makes it very difficult to not see this as basically them running the tables and attempting to upend 50 years of American history in a misguided attempt to bring us back to the golden era of a Clint Eastwood Wild Western.

Frontline PBS has some great documentaries on the Republican party basically realizing that they couldn't really rely on legislative or executive office to reliably solidify their power base over time. So they started to pour major resources into consolidating their power base in the judicial branch through currying favors with lawyers as early in their careers as possible which is why Republicans have million dollar funded think tanks that set up root in many legal programs and essentially provide solid networking opportunities so 0L students have no chance of escaping choosing a side in the political war machine.

Many people don't realize that Mitch McConnell's life mission was to secure a Supreme Court justice majority. In fact it was a 1987 Joe Biden then at the time head of the Senate Judiciary Committee who put the screws in Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork who was heavily opposed to the judicial reasoning behind both civil rights and abortion who put the screws in Bork in a way that forced a bipartisan vote from both moderate Republicans and Democrats to deny his nomination. When thrown a softball by a fellow Republican Senator Alan Simpson about why he would want to become a Supreme Court Justice, Bork responded that the opportunity would be an "intellectual feast." An enraged Mitch McConnell who witnessed his nominee get brutally cross examined vowed that this event set the done for him and he would return the act for future nominees when Republicans had control against candidates who did not fit their philosophical ideologies. It must be understood that it may have been 35 years since Mitch McConnell last had a boner as big as the one he has tonight.

 

[Alicorn]

So did anyone actually read Alito's opinion or did they just make up their minds based on their views on abortion?

To summarize, Alito is saying that the original ruling on Roe forcibly took out of the realm of democracy and into the hands of a small group of unelected men the power decide the legality of abortion and what restrictions, if any. And he thinks that was an egregious error by the court and wants to return that power back to the people. Because if the country is split on the key points needed to even have a debate, how is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to just decide what is best for everyone?

And uh, yeah? How can people unironically argue that overturning Roe violates democracy in defense of Roe, which violates democracy? This is literally the same process that decided Roe in the first place and somehow it is only undemocratic when it is going in reverse? Like, let me spell this out very clearly:

A group of unelected justices makes a ruling on Roe using their rightful authority: ok.

A group of unelected justices reverse the ruling on Roe using their rightful authority: bad and undemocratic.

Do you see the contradiction?

This isn't even an abortion issue and more about the role of the Supreme Court. They're supposed to be deciding based on what the Constitution actually says and not legislating from the bench. At no point ever was it decided that they were to act as official tie-breakers. If you believe in democracy then this shouldn't be remotely controversial at all. If you make the argument that unelected justices shouldn't decide abortion rights, you are literally arguing against the original ruling on Roe.

If you want abortion rights enshrined in law, you need to get actual legislation passed so courts can uphold it. Whining about the Supreme Court doing their job is not productive in this regard. If the country is too split to pass Federal laws then this is where state legislation becomes important. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court is trying to do here.

Blue states are fine. Even a lot of red states don't have a complete ban on abortion: the law that ushered in Roe still made allowances for medical emergencies. Exactly how many in this topic are even going to be affected by an abortion ban or live in an area where that is likely? And if you are arguing that you want to subvert majority will in those red states for your own beliefs, that is known as self-righteousness and is one of the reasons why our system has these protections. The abortion debate isn't settled and likely won't have a majority consensus nationally, so deciding by state is the only real solution.


Psst, many women also oppose abortion.

The power is not going back to the people. Its going back to the states which means its going to go through state legislators where the more extremist members of the party are. Leaving it to the states is only going to go badly for women in Red states who do not have the resources or access to abortion. The main point of these anti abortion laws is to punish women and people of color for voting. There is a correlation between Trump's loss and and the sudden rise of anti abortion bills being pushed through state houses. Because if you get convicted of a crime you lose your right to vote in some states thus allowing a party to stay in power. This kind of thing is no different from the Voter ID laws that sprang up in 2011. Its just another means of voter suppression.

 

[Sucumbio]

The power is not going back to the people. Its going back to the states which means its going to go through state legislators where the more extremist members of the party are. Leaving it to the states is only going to go badly for women in Red states who do not have the resources or access to abortion. The main point of these anti abortion laws is to punish women and people of color for voting. There is a correlation between Trump's loss and and the sudden rise of anti abortion bills being pushed through state houses. Because if you get convicted of a crime you lose your right to vote in some states thus allowing a party to stay in power. This kind of thing is no different from the Voter ID laws that sprang up in 2011. Its just another means of voter suppression.

Honestly never thought of that...

 

[Alicorn]

It does make sense. Republicans hate Black voters the most because they know Black people are more likely to vote Democrat. Black people make up 13 percent of the general population. Meaning that Democrats are most likely to get that voting block. The Republicans struggle to win over Black voters because they are using Nixion's Southern strategy which is meant to cater to White racists. So they can't have too many black people in the party or they will lose the white vote. So since The GOP can't win over the black vote they will suppress it. Since a lot of black people rely on social services the GOP aims to to target those things. Since Black women have the highest maternity death, Republicans go after abortion access. Since people of color mostly Black women are the ones who got Biden through the finish line. Republicans are punishing them for voting. Which is how we got here.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Sucumbio I don't know which is worse. Seeing StoicPhantom's post unironically take the Alito position at face value or Alicorn's take that the Republican party are antiabortion as an indirect means of killing black people over their other historical bag of tricks e.g. gerrymandering. It's also pretty crazy that someone who is questioning whether anyone read the Alito position on constitutionality took a look at it to find that he cites constitutional integrity from former justice Scalia who thought he was an originalist and argued against rulings related to the Affordable Care Act, abortions, gay marriage, and affirmative action on the basis of unconstitutionality (crazy how all those issues align and fit an ideological framework). StoicPhantom ignoring that NYSRPA v Bruen deliberation yesterday from another constitutional originalist Clarence Thomas liberating gun control laws in the state of New York and using Chief Justice Taney as historical precedent, someone who voted for Dred Scott and is attributed for passing laws that promoted institutional racism is

hahaha. I mean. Guys. Come on. I'm not unblocking him again just to call him a ****ing troll. This guy has not changed period. A conversation with StoicPhantom might require 50 posts of "serious discourse" about why slavery is bad. And then another 50 posts of why a current Supreme Court Justice reference a former Supreme Court Justice in a terrible ruling who was in favor of racial discrimination is a really bad take for any arguing that they are a constitutional "originalist" or to make arguments on the basis of constitutionality when there were obviously massive flaws from that place in time.

 

[Alicorn]

It is a sad thing HBC. But its part of an strategy. Does the party in general want to kill Black people. No. But they want to suppress the Black vote to make it easier to win. So making it harder for the poor to seek needed medical care is one way to keep voter turnout low. I'm just not sure how America is going to get out of this outside of waiting for another census. Because you can't outvote a Gerrymander.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

These takes are too strong for me. It's time for ARAM and chill.

Another point as well that has to be raised is that most of politics is extrapolating upon opportunity. I am just as disgusted as Justice having perverted rulings as I am with Pelosi and all other Democrats plugging the war machine for donations minutes after the announcement of the overturn. Of Leland Yee a democratic Senator who was strongly against arms to being exposed as being a notorious arms dealer. And the attempt by Republicans to subvert the underpinnings of democracy through the shocking events of September 11th through pushing through the Patriot Act, the torture memos, and rewriting Judicial opinion to enable the president to act without checks or balances during war time as a unitary executive body through John Yoo and other bad actors. Yes, I read the Justice opinions in the same way I read through the Yoo memos. Same ****. Different day.

 

[Alicorn]

I should be more hopeful. This might be a good way to motivate people into caring about voting. So there is a sliver lining to all this.

 

[Sucumbio]

#HBC | Acrostic 100 percent agree. In fact now that you mention it, it IS kind of telling that judges are usually elected during regular election cycles and always run on a political platform! There should not be political party association if you're a judge lol but there it is (and obviously in states like mine in the deep south most judges run on Republican tickets and are uncontested).

So it's really about lower courts and higher courts and as a would be judge you first have to associate with a party, campaign for election, sit on the bench for a decade pushing your party's agenda then get scooped up into the Fed where you can retire a prominent federal judge or rise to scotus. Seems like this isn't the way the founders imagined the Judiciary Branch would turn out.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

#HBC | Acrostic 100 percent agree. In fact now that you mention it, it IS kind of telling that judges are usually elected during regular election cycles and always run on a political platform! There should not be political party association if you're a judge lol but there it is (and obviously in states like mine in the deep south most judges run on Republican tickets and are uncontested). So it's really about lower courts and higher courts and as a would be judge you first have to associate with a party, campaign for election, sit on the bench for a decade pushing your party's agenda then get scooped up into the Fed where you can retire a prominent federal judge or rise to scotus. Seems like this isn't the way the founders imagined the Judiciary Branch would turn out.

The Supreme Court established life long appointments I believe once nominated in order to create impartiality as dissent among judicial decisions cannot affect livelihood or so was the understanding. To be fair, I agree with PBS Frontline's stance that 1987 was a pivotal movement not just Supreme Court nominations but also in turning the court itself following Bork. We soon saw the importance of the Supreme Court to Republicans with them actively blocking a Supreme Court nomination from President Obama which was unprecedented. A funny thing to mention considering Alito's opinion that Justice ought to ignore stare decisis when it conflicts with their beliefs on what is and and what is not needed. However, still relying on constitutional originalists and historical precedent to uphold the status quo when it concerns matters non-relevant to contentious topics. Law itself is fundamentally a practice of shaping policy through precedent and stare decisis. We get to point C through a Hegelian method of proposing point A, counterpoint B, and then shaping a point C. To argue that a justice nominated by the president who is nominated by the people is in such unique area of insight to undermine hundreds of years of judicial process is absurd, what it does enable is for short term thinking to run the discourse of American politics and negatively affects our ability to be wrong, accept being wrong, and attempting to make amends for being wrong.

 

[Alicorn]

From what I remember from Civics the Judiciary branch didn't really have a purpose during the founding of the country. It was often joked that the Court was just some guys who hung out in the library most of the time not really taking an active role in the country when you compare it to the other branches of government

Its also hard to balance because nothing short of a super majority is going to impeach a judge. I mean if someone like Clarence Thomas can stay on the bench and defile the court despite all the muck he is in. There really needs to be a change to the rules to hold the court accountable to the people instead of to the court

 

[StoicPhantom]

I don't know which is worse. Seeing StoicPhantom's post unironically take the Alito position at face value

hahaha. I mean. Guys. Come on. I'm not unblocking him again just to call him a ****ing troll. This guy has not changed period. A conversation with StoicPhantom might require 50 posts of "serious discourse" about why slavery is bad. And then another 50 posts of why a current Supreme Court Justice reference a former Supreme Court Justice in a terrible ruling who was in favor of racial discrimination is a really bad take for any arguing that they are a constitutional "originalist" or to make arguments on the basis of constitutionality when there were obviously massive flaws from that place in time.

Lmao, that is a completely random and uncalled for level of hate that's clearly been festering for a while.

Alrighty then, if I'm not qualified, then let's take a look at this article written by a former Constitutional lawyer. Even though it isn't fundamentally different than what I was saying, I would still encourage people to read it as it provides much more context for the role of the Supreme Court. I'm not denying that our system isn't perfect or that change may be necessary, but people should at least understand what it is they're changing, why it was originally that way, and the implications and consequences that could be brought by those changes.

As an example:

And if the courts aren't held to precedent in previous rulings (stare decisis) essentially means that these radicalized justices could go on a war path and try to recreate their delusional paradise of a 1950s America in a 2020s world.

Greenwald points out that holding courts to precedents means that Lawrence and Obergefell would be impossible. Indeed, without the Supreme Court overturning their previous ruling in Bowers vs. Hardwick, legalization of sodomy for homosexuals would still be left up to the states. This and the overturning of Roe are fundamentally the same thing, so banning the SC from going against precedent would be the same as making illegal homosexuality in Texas.

This is also the point I've been trying to make here. I didn't make the rules, so don't shoot the messenger. I'm sorry that these topics are complex enough to require "50 posts of serious discourse" and are not always able to be in bite-sized, feel-good, easily digestible chunks. Particularly when some people on this site have a tendency to ignore what I say and force me to repeat it in various different ways over and over again.

The problem I have is the personal freedom to make a choice has been decided for an entire gender and yet it was stated that's somehow not discrimination.

Roe possibly being the result of an "undemocratic" process is really not important in the face of the objectively wrong decision being made. The right thing to do, even if not via the best means>>>>the wrong thing to do being done via the established process. This was never about democracy or "returning that power to the people" lol.

The power is not going back to the people. Its going back to the states which means its going to go through state legislators where the more extremist members of the party are.

I think the problem here is that you guys are confusing your belief that abortion should be a right with abortion being an actual right, which it is not. By not, I mean there isn't anywhere in legislation or law where abortion has been made a universal right. Any implication of universality was tied up in one court ruling fifty years ago and you've never had the power to prevent that ruling from being overturned, just like the pro-life crowd didn't get a choice when the ruling was initially made.

And that's the problem. The comparisons to the Second Amendment that keep being made aren't fair because the Second Amendment is an actual right that was enshrined in the Constitution. You can play word games with the meaning of militia or arms, but "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a pretty strong statement. There is nothing like that for abortion anywhere in the Constitution or even federal law (that I'm aware of anyways). The ruling itself was trying to tie abortion to privacy rights and didn't mention anything about abortion itself being mentioned in the Constitution.

Whether it should be or not is irrelevant. The fact that abortion activism primarily focused on protecting this iffy ruling and not making abortion a real right led to there being nothing tangible for courts to rule on. You need to have actual language that can be protected before worrying about anything being taken away. When "abortion shall not be infringed" is an actual thing, then comparisons can be made to the Second Amendment.

Because nothing has been taken away. You can still make abortion a Constitutional right if you go through the same process the Second Amendment did by ratifying it at a Constitutional Convention. Barring that, you still have the ability to make abortion a federal right by going through the legislative process in the House and Senate. Barring that, you can go through your local legislatures to make it a right in your state. You have options, use them.

Leaving it to the states is only going to go badly for women in Red states who do not have the resources or access to abortion.

So I've noticed that there is a willful ignorance as to who it is that votes politicians in and what the demographics actually are when it comes to states rights. Politicians don't just magically appear in leadership roles; your government is a reflection of who you are. It's not an accident that "blue states" or "red states" have a particular brand of leadership.

Why because men can't get pregnant so the question isn't covered by Liberty?

The main point of these anti abortion laws is to punish women

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

The interesting thing about this state is not that its law was the catalyst for overturning Roe, not that it is majority-opposed to abortion, but the fact that the opposition has more women in it than men. Women make up 51% of those who favor restrictions on abortion. In fact, women have always made up a pretty sizable amount of anti-abortion sentiment, even if they are often not the majority.

So how do we reconcile this? From what I've seen, these women are just flat out ignored in favor of a evil men narrative. And if your view is that pro-life/conservative women are brainwashed or are irrelevant for having the wrong opinion, are you not committing the very sin of sidelining women that you are decrying?

And what about men? If we follow the logical conclusion of unrestricted abortion access, we must necessarily argue that abortion be publicly subsidized so poor women will not be left out. If pro-choice advocates aren't already arguing that (lots do), they will eventually. If so, that means that men are necessarily involved and on the hook for the costs of the individual woman's abortion since their taxes and productivity gains will be going towards abortion.

And on a micro level, men are not allowed in a lot of states to have a decision if their would-be child is/isn't aborted as that's left entirely to the women. They are also not allowed to choose if they have to pay child support for the child they don't want in many cases. Even if they terminate their parental rights and access to the child, they still have to bear the costs of supporting the child.

In other words, men are told they have no business in the affairs of woman and her body, except apparently when it comes time to pay for it. They have no right to make decisions about a woman's body, but have a social responsibility to pay for it, even if they find it morally reprehensible. Not only is this an obvious hypocrisy, but it is a very one-sided affair period. Is it really any wonder that men tend to be more opposed on average than women to a scenario where they are effectively told they have no stake in the costs they are demanded to bear? Same argument when the government starts a war nobody wants or bails out the crooks on Wall Street with everybody else's money.


Yeah, this is a far trickier subject than lots of people give it credit for. It might be nice to slot yourself into a particular ideology that glosses over these conundrums and gives you an easy answer, but if you want to be responsible with the topic, you need to be ready to wade through the muck. Contrary to popular slogans, abortion is something that affects all of society, even though only a small portion actually have abortions. I can't think of very many examples where that is true with other issues off the top of my head. Most other issues I can think of have a shared cost or benefit and there are many fault lines within the subject of abortion about who shares the responsibilities, benefits, and burdens that "muh body" or "muh Bible" doesn't adequately address.

That's why I ultimately think leaving it up to the individual states is perhaps the only palatable solution currently. It's probably not impossible to reconcile most of the division on this subject, but I'm not sure Americans are able to do that currently. Certainly not when people are willfully ignoring who bears the costs and benefits of abortion. My biggest peeve on the topic isn't even about whether one side is right or not, but about how both sides deliberately obfuscate the topic. You can't have a real conversation when you refuse to acknowledge the stakes of all parties involved.

And if you still truly believe you are right and that others must be forced to play along, all I can say is good luck trying to fight a civil war without guns. War is ultimately the result between irreconcilable parties that believe the other must be forcibly subject to their beliefs.

 

[Sucumbio]

Lmao, that is a completely random and uncalled for level of hate that's clearly been festering for a while.

Alrighty then, if I'm not qualified, then let's take a look at this article written by a former Constitutional lawyer. Even though it isn't fundamentally different than what I was saying, I would still encourage people to read it as it provides much more context for the role of the Supreme Court. I'm not denying that our system isn't perfect or that change may be necessary, but people should at least understand what it is they're changing, why it was originally that way, and the implications and consequences that could be brought by those changes.

As an example:


Greenwald points out that holding courts to precedents means that Lawrence and Obergefell would be impossible. Indeed, without the Supreme Court overturning their previous ruling in Bowers vs. Hardwick, legalization of sodomy for homosexuals would still be left up to the states. This and the overturning of Roe are fundamentally the same thing, so banning the SC from going against precedent would be the same as making illegal homosexuality in Texas.

This is also the point I've been trying to make here. I didn't make the rules, so don't shoot the messenger. I'm sorry that these topics are complex enough to require "50 posts of serious discourse" and are not always able to be in bite-sized, feel-good, easily digestible chunks. Particularly when some people on this site have a tendency to ignore what I say and force me to repeat it in various different ways over and over again.




I think the problem here is that you guys are confusing your belief that abortion should be a right with abortion being an actual right, which it is not. By not, I mean there isn't anywhere in legislation or law where abortion has been made a universal right. Any implication of universality was tied up in one court ruling fifty years ago and you've never had the power to prevent that ruling from being overturned, just like the pro-life crowd didn't get a choice when the ruling was initially made.

And that's the problem. The comparisons to the Second Amendment that keep being made aren't fair because the Second Amendment is an actual right that was enshrined in the Constitution. You can play word games with the meaning of militia or arms, but "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a pretty strong statement. There is nothing like that for abortion anywhere in the Constitution or even federal law (that I'm aware of anyways). The ruling itself was trying to tie abortion to privacy rights and didn't mention anything about abortion itself being mentioned in the Constitution.

Whether it should be or not is irrelevant. The fact that abortion activism primarily focused on protecting this iffy ruling and not making abortion a real right led to there being nothing tangible for courts to rule on. You need to have actual language that can be protected before worrying about anything being taken away. When "abortion shall not be infringed" is an actual thing, then comparisons can be made to the Second Amendment.

Because nothing has been taken away. You can still make abortion a Constitutional right if you go through the same process the Second Amendment did by ratifying it at a Constitutional Convention. Barring that, you still have the ability to make abortion a federal right by going through the legislative process in the House and Senate. Barring that, you can go through your local legislatures to make it a right in your state. You have options, use them.


So I've noticed that there is a willful ignorance as to who it is that votes politicians in and what the demographics actually are when it comes to states rights. Politicians don't just magically appear in leadership roles; your government is a reflection of who you are. It's not an accident that "blue states" or "red states" have a particular brand of leadership.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

The interesting thing about this state is not that its law was the catalyst for overturning Roe, not that it is majority-opposed to abortion, but the fact that the opposition has more women in it than men. Women make up 51% of those who favor restrictions on abortion. In fact, women have always made up a pretty sizable amount of anti-abortion sentiment, even if they are often not the majority.

So how do we reconcile this? From what I've seen, these women are just flat out ignored in favor of a evil men narrative. And if your view is that pro-life/conservative women are brainwashed or are irrelevant for having the wrong opinion, are you not committing the very sin of sidelining women that you are decrying?

And what about men? If we follow the logical conclusion of unrestricted abortion access, we must necessarily argue that abortion be publicly subsidized so poor women will not be left out. If pro-choice advocates aren't already arguing that (lots do), they will eventually. If so, that means that men are necessarily involved and on the hook for the costs of the individual woman's abortion since their taxes and productivity gains will be going towards abortion.

And on a micro level, men are not allowed in a lot of states to have a decision if their would-be child is/isn't aborted as that's left entirely to the women. They are also not allowed to choose if they have to pay child support for the child they don't want in many cases. Even if they terminate their parental rights and access to the child, they still have to bear the costs of supporting the child.

In other words, men are told they have no business in the affairs of woman and her body, except apparently when it comes time to pay for it. They have no right to make decisions about a woman's body, but have a social responsibility to pay for it, even if they find it morally reprehensible. Not only is this an obvious hypocrisy, but it is a very one-sided affair period. Is it really any wonder that men tend to be more opposed on average than women to a scenario where they are effectively told they have no stake in the costs they are demanded to bear? Same argument when the government starts a war nobody wants or bails out the crooks on Wall Street with everybody else's money.


Yeah, this is a far trickier subject than lots of people give it credit for. It might be nice to slot yourself into a particular ideology that glosses over these conundrums and gives you an easy answer, but if you want to be responsible with the topic, you need to be ready to wade through the muck. Contrary to popular slogans, abortion is something that affects all of society, even though only a small portion actually have abortions. I can't think of very many examples where that is true with other issues off the top of my head. Most other issues I can think of have a shared cost or benefit and there are many fault lines within the subject of abortion about who shares the responsibilities, benefits, and burdens that "muh body" or "muh Bible" doesn't adequately address.

That's why I ultimately think leaving it up to the individual states is perhaps the only palatable solution currently. It's probably not impossible to reconcile most of the division on this subject, but I'm not sure Americans are able to do that currently. Certainly not when people are willfully ignoring who bears the costs and benefits of abortion. My biggest peeve on the topic isn't even about whether one side is right or not, but about how both sides deliberately obfuscate the topic. You can't have a real conversation when you refuse to acknowledge the stakes of all parties involved.

And if you still truly believe you are right and that others must be forced to play along, all I can say is good luck trying to fight a civil war without guns. War is ultimately the result between irreconcilable parties that believe the other must be forcibly subject to their beliefs.

On the last bit I definitely agree. This will lead to violence. The new civil war between women who want personal autonomy and everyone else.

Who pays for it? The same people who pay for all medical procedures. Women get financial "help" giving birth. Or fighting breast cancer. Or any number of gender specific ailments or medical needs (annual wellness at the gynecologist etc). So I find the financial angle to this talk unfounded but maybe #HBC | Acrostic can better explain as I recall he's more closely tied professionally to medicine (but I could be wrong).

As for demonstrating that women also oppose abortion... So? We're talking about the rights of women to control their own bodies so that includes other women interfering with this choice because of their beliefs. It should be no one's business except between the potential mother and their doctor. If the doctor has a moral objection to performing abortion great that's private health care and competition in the health market. It should stop there, though.

Essentially this is all leading towards a nation where sex acts should only be performed for the purpose of procreation between a cis man and woman. Everything else is a deviation that flies in the face of Christian morals.

Well I have a problem with that. There is no room for God in Law. So the way I see it, ironically turns out to be the same as you. We need to focus on state legislature and Congress. France is considering enshrinement of abortion in their constitution so that's one chance but it's going to have to be broad enough to cover total autonomy of self in medical decisions. This means abortion, gender affirming, LGBTQ marriage and intercourse, all of it.

Edit

some thought provoking articles and tidbits...

The woman taking some (all) of the credit for this situation, supposedly

And

"Ismael Ozanne, the Dane County district attorney, signaled on Friday that he would not enforce the Wisconsin law that criminalized abortion, a suggestion that a patchwork situation could develop in which abortion is prosecuted differently from county to county." -nyt

Patchwork situation is better right? For a thing that effects an entire Gender regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity (barring post op confirmation surgery)... ?

If the 14th amendment clause 1 really only applies to freedmen or their offspring... Race...

The 19th Amendment for voting protected for everyone regardless of ... Sex


WTF! More patchworking? Handling these " rights " by Virtue of one at a time? Nah.

If they're going to undue everything going back to the 14th amendment then the next amendment should not just be about abortion.

It needs to use language that won't become ambiguous so quickly. "SEX', " RACE" ... Ugh.

 

[StoicPhantom]

Who pays for it? The same people who pay for all medical procedures.

Well, if you live in America, currently it is the individual American after things like private insurance and other programs. I suppose if your specific argument is that women paying for their own abortions is fine in exchange for having the option, that's a valid argument in strict relation to my point about public subsidization. But my point there was in regards to public subsidization and not a general sense of healthcare based on the logical conclusion that you need to eliminate the financial barrier if you want to ensure all women have access to abortion.

Yeah, men don't have breasts and women don't have testicles. They also don't believe exams for either is morally reprehensible. Both sexes allow leeway for their respective differences, but abortion is something neither believes is a valid form of healthcare (among the anti-abortionists). Thus they aren't going to be happy subsidizing abortion.

If you don't believe in publicly subsidizing abortion then disregard this point. But you also can't really argue for access to abortion and not do something about the financial barriers poor women will face too.

I will also just throw out there that the medical industry generally bars organ donation to people that are prone to substance abuse like alcoholism even if it will lead to their eventual death. So there is precedent for barring access based on lifestyle choices.

As for demonstrating that women also oppose abortion... So? We're talking about the rights of women to control their own bodies so that includes other women interfering with this choice because of their beliefs.

That's just the thing though "beliefs". There are people who believe that the unborn baby's autonomy overrides the pregnant woman's in this case. There are those who think the opposite and believe a fetus doesn't constitute life and is just a "clump of cells" or however they would define it. A woman's autonomy over her body also isn't sacred or relevant because we have many laws that override one's autonomy on the books such as Age of Majority, Age of Consent, military drafts, imprisonment by the state, conservatorship, laws in general really.

The only thing that really decides when one has a right to their personal autonomy seems to be if society doesn't see benefit in superseding it or if another autonomy supersedes it. Meaning that if society sees abortion as harmful or if the unborn baby's rights are deemed to take precedence then there's nothing stopping the override of one's autonomy in a legal context. And if you believe that overriding one's autonomy is inherently immoral, I take it that you also have issues with the aforementioned laws?

So that's kind of the issue here when it comes to framing the argument as protecting women's rights. Abortion being seen as harmful to society aside, what exactly constitutes a life and do unborn persons have rights?

The courts seem unwilling to clearly define personhood except in the case of corporations apparently and science seems pretty unsure as to how to objectively define life. Barring an objective definition of life, it really seems to come down to subjective opinion. And if you can't define life and personhood, how does one figure out where rights and autonomy end and begin?

There's also the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that has a provision that exempts abortion from being considered murder. I'm not sure how we begin to reconcile how you can be on the hook for double homicide for murdering a pregnant woman and still abort your unborn baby legally other than to say that unborn babies can be murdered if we think the social benefits outweigh the moral costs. And apparently society doesn't consider murdering your wife in order to continue boning another woman and get out of parenthood a social benefit.

So my pointing to women that oppose abortion was to kill the framing that it is women vs the world (men) that seems to crop up frequently in these discussions. I think framing this as an attack on women is deliberately misleading and attempts to shame pro-life arguments in ways that aren't productive.

Essentially this is all leading towards a nation where sex acts should only be performed for the purpose of procreation between a cis man and woman. Everything else is a deviation that flies in the face of Christian morals.

I wouldn't go that far. Birth control is still an option and is used in other countries with low abortion rates, it just isn't used in this case obviously. One of my peeves with the pro-choice argument in handing out abortions like candy is the prevalence of "accidents" that seems to occur in American society. I feel like a little responsibility could go a long way in making abortion an irrelevant issue.

Well I have a problem with that. There is no room for God in Law. So the way I see it, ironically turns out to be the same as you. We need to focus on state legislature and Congress.

Yeah, that's been more or less my point since the beginning. 90% of the arguments coming from both sides are garbage that is pretty much irrelevant to anything objective or comes from a place of pure entitlement or self-righteousness. The debate continues to go in circles largely because people keep going off in irrelevant tangents that don't hold up. Trying to one up each other by leveraging institutional authorities instead of building actual movements and getting real legislation passed shows to me that abortion is still purely symbolic for most people.

The liberal/left would do well to take a page out of those conservative and religious groups that will now have valid laws against abortion in their respective states. Whining that an entity they decry pretty much every other day of the week didn't keep a shaky and undemocratic ruling is getting pretty pathetic. They're getting their clocks cleaned in the legislation and in the courts primarily because they've been taking a boutique approach to politics that largely consists of virtue-signaling and tearing each other apart on social media. While our supposed rebels are flabbergasted over the system they claim never works in their favor didn't work in their favor, the right doesn't take no for an answer and they continue to be rewarded for it.

But I guess they don't really have to worry now that the courts are taking a hands-off approach to this topic because they absolutely refuse to have anything to do with the other half of the country. That's why it is always x that lives elsewhere that libs have thoughts and prayers for and not really being affected themselves. I guess people might as well just flock to the territories of their respective color gangs because clearly no one is interested in seeing things from another perspective or having a real conversation anymore.

IMO, the debate around abortion should be framed squarely on whether the social benefits of abortion justify the moral costs as that's the only thing that makes sense when the topic is made transparent and we know who is actually affected. Everything else is sophistry by ideologues.

 

[Sucumbio]

...if your specific argument is that women paying for their own abortions is fine in exchange for having the option, that's a valid argument in strict relation to my point about public subsidization

It is.

Both sexes allow leeway for their respective differences, but abortion is something neither believes is a valid form of healthcare (among the anti-abortionists). Thus they aren't going to be happy subsidizing abortion.

Eh, maybe? I don't know about this, it seems logical an OBGYN would not only be well versed in surgical abortion procedure but its necessity to avoid deaths as was prevalent during pre-medicine era.

And morning after pills for **** victims.

Or as a contraceptive.

There's lots of study actually so no I don't think I'd pointing to this works in prolife's favor if we're tallying such things. Which I am in the background because maybe I'm wrong but it feels right to be outraged. You understand?

I will also just throw out there that the medical industry generally bars organ donation to people that are prone to substance abuse like alcoholism even if it will lead to their eventual death. So there is precedent for barring access based on lifestyle choices.

Eh, nah, a non sequitur. Getting pregnant isn't necessarily a lifestyle choice such as in cases of **** (and we're arguing from a platform of no exceptions except in medical emergency I'm assuming.)

That's just the thing though "beliefs". There are people who believe that the unborn baby's autonomy overrides the pregnant woman's in this case. There are those who think the opposite and believe a fetus doesn't constitute life and is just a "clump of cells" or however they would define it. A woman's autonomy over her body also isn't sacred or relevant because we have many laws that override one's autonomy on the books such as Age of Majority, Age of Consent, military drafts, imprisonment by the state, conservatorship, laws in general really.

The only thing that really decides when one has a right to their personal autonomy seems to be if society doesn't see benefit in superseding it or if another autonomy supersedes it. Meaning that if society sees abortion as harmful or if the unborn baby's rights are deemed to take precedence then there's nothing stopping the override of one's autonomy in a legal context. And if you believe that overriding one's autonomy is inherently immoral, I take it that you also have issues with the aforementioned laws?

So that's kind of the issue here when it comes to framing the argument as protecting women's rights. Abortion being seen as harmful to society aside, what exactly constitutes a life and do unborn persons have rights?

The courts seem unwilling to clearly define personhood except in the case of corporations apparently and science seems pretty unsure as to how to objectively define life. Barring an objective definition of life, it really seems to come down to subjective opinion. And if you can't define life and personhood, how does one figure out where rights and autonomy end and begin?

There's also the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that has a provision that exempts abortion from being considered murder. I'm not sure how we begin to reconcile how you can be on the hook for double homicide for murdering a pregnant woman and still abort your unborn baby legally other than to say that unborn babies can be murdered if we think the social benefits outweigh the moral costs. And apparently society doesn't consider murdering your wife in order to continue boning another woman and get out of parenthood a social benefit.

So my pointing to women that oppose abortion was to kill the framing that it is women vs the world (men) that seems to crop up frequently in these discussions. I think framing this as an attack on women is deliberately misleading and attempts to shame pro-life arguments in ways that aren't productive.

Actually... I understand your view. And I'm not opposed to looking at autonomy through this lense. My premise is that in most circumstances unless a crime has been committed or you're enlisted, your body is sanctified, until placed under arrest in which case your physical condition relies on the state to maintain.

Being pregnant has basically become a special state of being that will require lots of judicial work while women figure out how to do away with unwanted pregnancies. So while the outcome may very well be abortion stays perfectly legal in some counties or states and your home state really can't punish you and enough corporations keep good on promising to foot the bill through insurance and yada yada.. all that... It's STILL a DECISION that was made by each pregnant woman. Regardless of circumstances on HOW.

Until we can move past the how, we really are stuck in a circle.

I feel like a little responsibility could go a long way in making abortion an irrelevant issue.

Ah, you're tipping your hand. Again. It's not about how the woman got pregnant. It's about why they need to abort the pregnancy.

Yeah, that's been more or less my point since the beginning. 90% of the arguments coming from both sides are garbage that is pretty much irrelevant to anything objective or comes from a place of pure entitlement or self-righteousness. The debate continues to go in circles largely because people keep going off in irrelevant tangents that don't hold up. Trying to one up each other by leveraging institutional authorities instead of building actual movements and getting real legislation passed shows to me that abortion is still purely symbolic for most people.

The liberal/left would do well to take a page out of those conservative and religious groups that will now have valid laws against abortion in their respective states. Whining that an entity they decry pretty much every other day of the week didn't keep a shaky and undemocratic ruling is getting pretty pathetic. They're getting their clocks cleaned in the legislation and in the courts primarily because they've been taking a boutique approach to politics that largely consists of virtue-signaling and tearing each other apart on social media. While our supposed rebels are flabbergasted over the system they claim never works in their favor didn't work in their favor, the right doesn't take no for an answer and they continue to be rewarded for it.

But I guess they don't really have to worry now that the courts are taking a hands-off approach to this topic because they absolutely refuse to have anything to do with the other half of the country. That's why it is always x that lives elsewhere that libs have thoughts and prayers for and not really being affected themselves. I guess people might as well just flock to the territories of their respective color gangs because clearly no one is interested in seeing things from another perspective or having a real conversation anymore.

IMO, the debate around abortion should be framed squarely on whether the social benefits of abortion justify the moral costs as that's the only thing that makes sense when the topic is made transparent and we know who is actually affected. Everything else is sophistry by ideologues.

Basically yeah.

 

[CannonStreak]

I have something I wish to say. In regards to the abortion thing that happened recently, and politicians...

I think people who want power such as politicians and the church itself (I will focus mainly on politicians here) want more people to be born so they, themselves, the power wanting people can become more powerful. It looks like population means power here. The more people who exist or are born, the more power the power craving people will be come. They don't even care in that regard who, as in what kind of women end up getting hurt or are in danger for having a baby; as long as that baby ends up being born for them to get more power for themselves.

With how bad the education is in the USA, and how powerful other countries may be, it seems the lack of critical thinking, common sense and intelligence means more power to the ones wanting power as the people they have power over do not have the smarts to challenge them with that in mind. Furthermore, I would even say minorities of any country are allowed to be born so that the powerful will have control over them, and take advantage, exploit and try to put down such people for their own game, trying to make it so that they can be abused and still give for more power to the powerful. In regards to little kids and babies, while many can have a good life, it seems they exist for the powerful to try and control them and get more power for their gain. There are also things and laws that prevent kids from knowing the full truth or things or knowing any better, sometimes being taken advantage of.

Now, not all politicians or powerful people are like this and they may not all know that they are doing this; still to me, this phrase comes to mind: "Why are we here, just to suffer?".

You know what I mean here?

 

[Sucumbio]

Ahh great movie.

But in all seriousness yes I believe it can be said that staying in power is the goal of anyone IN power and this ties into corruption and coercion. Already the lines are being drawn with some States turning this into a war of attrition. Pretty despicable actually.

 

[CannonStreak]

Ahh great movie.

But in all seriousness yes I believe it can be said that staying in power is the goal of anyone IN power and this ties into corruption and coercion. Already the lines are being drawn with some States turning this into a war of attrition. Pretty despicable actually.

I know what you mean. As human beings, we should not have to resort to any of this. It is a shame that some people just care about themselves rather than others.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Sucumbio The Human Life Protection Act that I've reviewed for Mississippi and Alabama do not define it an "abortion" if there is something like an ectopic pregnancy (can be detected four to six weeks into pregnancy) which the bill mentions specifically, cases in which the unborn child will die on birth, or shortly after birth with the specific language "stillbirth" being used (after 20 weeks of pregnancy). In conditions also where it seems like there is a lethal anomaly such as anencephaly in which an ultrasound detects as early as 12-13 weeks that the baby does not have a skull, then an abortion can be carried through.

The brief experience I have had with pregnant mothers has been back when I did a student rotation in the inner city and more than half the list was filled with teen pregnancies. A large proportion of which had never had a check up before, were uninsured, and were all under the age of fifteen. The Catch-22 that an OBGYN could find themselves in is that fundamentally if there are these girls who come in and they are already in second/third trimester then fundamentally they are at high risk and the baby is also at high risk. However, in this moral dilemma the physician is forced to potentially take on a high mortality operation if the state insists that per criteria (8) that the physician must consider all mothers "woman" regardless of whether or not they are the "age of majority" (e.g. older than 18).

Let's say a mother in between second to third trimester gets blood work completed and antiphospholipid (ALP)/alphafetoprotein (AFP) does not look good e.g. highly indicative that this baby is at high risk for spina bifida or anencephaly. Let's argue that around 10-14 weeks ultrasound imaging suggests potential risk for down syndrome so a follow up karyotype shows trisomy 21, XXY syndrome, or criu de chat syndrome s/p chorionic villus sampling (CVS). Recent research in National Library of Medicine published in 2016 and testing conducted from 2007-2015 revealed 119 potential candidate genes that were at risk for transcription factor issues for preterm birth (births before 37 weeks of gestation). Not unexpected considering the billions of nucleotides that had to be coded perfectly in order to be functional enough to explain such a phenomenon and unfortunately one that almost every human takes for granted.

Let's also look at a disease like Cystic Fibrosis which is an autosomal recessive disorder which means that carriers can carry the disease on a defective allele thereby holding it genotypically, however not phenotypically. Therefore, in the case of two carriers having cystic fibrosis their child has a 25% chance of inheriting the disease and requiring lifelong antibiotics, bronchodilators, and may require a single lung transplant which uninsured goes for $1,295,900 and after insurance was between $99,535 and $216,639 per a report back in 1993 per National Library of Medicine. Essentially these parents will be buried in medical debt and will live their entire life to fight for a child who if lucky will make it past 40 years old and struggle through every step of the way to survive.

The issue with the Supreme Court decision and the states passing the Human Life Protection Act is that these laws are not methodical, deeply rooted in modern medicine, or has accounted for the people that may require abortion medication for off-label use such as menstrual cycle regulation. The Supreme Court and the states that have decided to push through with this legislation have not thought these issues through based on the bill that I have seen as it is linked. If there is something like a rider that was attached, then I clearly did not see it when I went into Google three or four times attempting to find a more comprehensive bill. The worst thing is that honestly my participation in this discourse is complete pseudointellectual horse**** when you consider that pregnant mothers in certain states have less medical options, may suffer greater health complications even in the case of successful pregnancy (gestational diabetes), and are saddled with a hospitalization bill that is based on them being in the few states that are pushing this through. Last time I checked, an Ultrasound for DVT without insurance is around $1200-$2000. A 12-lead EKG is also very similar in terms of pricing. These laws, like with most others will have a disproportionately negative impact on the socioeconomically challenged. But then again, does anyone here really care.

"On the average, only those prisoners could keep alive who, after years of trekking from camp to camp, had lost all scruples in their fight for existence; they were prepared to use every means, honest and otherwise, even brutal force, theft, and betrayal of their friends, in order to save themselves. We who have come back, by the aid of many lucky chances or miracles - whatever one may choose to call them - we know: the best of us did not return."