Roe v. Wade May Be Overturned

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for cocacolaman
CocaColaMan

23913

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

In the USA, the landmark case Roe v. Wade may be overturned by the Supreme Court. What are your thoughts?

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

238406

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So it's happened already ?

The World is a Changing...

Avatar image for lordtwigo
LordTwigo

2233

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By LordTwigo

Not particularly concerned.

US states can still ultimately decide whether abortion is legal there or not.

What really shocks me is how such a unprecedented leak occured in the supreme court. Whoever did this, regardless of their motive or political affiliation is going to be indirectly responsible for any possible violent protests that transpire

Avatar image for last0fth3risen
last0fth3risen

3844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It's crazy that basic civil rights, even ones that have been firmly established for 50 years, can vanish, as a consequence of a single administration getting lucky with court appointments.

Avatar image for mcflicky
McFlicky

4456

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Why is it we let a pack of decrepit, coffin dodging cretins decide what our laws are again?

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

238406

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mcflicky said:

Why is it we let a pack of decrepit, coffin dodging cretins decide what our laws are again?

It is weird that essentially Nine Elderly People get to play God upon the Land.

Some Traditions may need to be Revisited ?

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

5992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It is good that Roe v Wade is being overturned.

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

5992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Not particularly concerned.

US states can still ultimately decide whether abortion is legal there or not.

What really shocks me is how such a unprecedented leak occured in the supreme court. Whoever did this, regardless of their motive or political affiliation is going to be indirectly responsible for any possible violent protests that transpire

The leaker should be punished!

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

5992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm Pro-Life, except for the following cases: when the female is in danger of losing her life, when there is incest, when the female has been raped. I think life is precious and starts when the zygote is formed.

Avatar image for irishx
IrishX

5163

Forum Posts

407752

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

@mcflicky said:

Why is it we let a pack of decrepit, coffin dodging cretins decide what our laws are again?

It is weird that essentially Nine Elderly People get to play God upon the Land.

Some Traditions may need to be Revisited ?

Is it weird? Doesn't basically every culture through time hold their elders up as wise and ones who should be listened too and followed?

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

12804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't care much about pro/anti abortion, But Roe Vs Wade was a shit ruling where the court took authority for itself that should instead belong to the other two branches of government, based on some wonky logic.

Therefore the overturning of such a ruling, should be seen as a correction of law first in my opinion.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

238406

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@irishx said:
@king_saturn said:
@mcflicky said:

Why is it we let a pack of decrepit, coffin dodging cretins decide what our laws are again?

It is weird that essentially Nine Elderly People get to play God upon the Land.

Some Traditions may need to be Revisited ?

Is it weird? Doesn't basically every culture through time hold their elders up as wise and ones who should be listened too and followed?

Yes it's Weird. No culture has just Nine People they see as Elders not unless it's some small community. We have 100 United States Senators who vote on Legislation and over 400 House Representatives who vote on Legislation. So why only Nine Elders get to play God in the Supreme Court ?

Also, and more importantly, not all Elders are seen in the same light. I am sure you would not regard the 46th President quite like you would the 45th one.

Avatar image for irishx
IrishX

5163

Forum Posts

407752

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

@king_saturn: O...k sure. Yep every single culture throughout history has gone a different route than listening to their elders. You sure told me.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

238406

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@irishx said:

@king_saturn: O...k sure. Yep every single culture throughout history has gone a different route than listening to their elders. You sure told me.

I did not say that. My point was that America has hundreds of people who vote on Legislation so why only Nine Elders get to play God and make Laws ? The other issue is the quality of the Elder which I brought up as well.

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

6899

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By mimisalome

It seems that the US Constitution doesn't even have a take on abortion.

It doesn't legalize abortion nor make it illegal, it just doesn't have an opinion on it.

The people behind the amendment (which Roe vs Wade was based on) wasn't even aware that abortion was a consideration when they amended the Constitution.

The amendment happened when anti-abortion laws were already in place in some states.

And yet the amendment never created a conflict with those States abortion laws.

So historically it was never even meant to be a basis to establish the Constitutionality of "abortion right" (whatever that means to american people).

I think the intitial dissenter of the decision was right.

Roe vs Wade is a short cut that bypass the legistlative body. It is essentially legistlating from the bench.

If people want to have a Constitutional rights to "abortion" they should first have the congress to amend the Constitution, because the current Constitution is ambigious about the issue of abortion and insufficient as a basis for such decision.

But ofcourse the problem with regards to having a constitutional rights for bodily autonomy will open up a can of worms that even the Left will find problematic.

It will not only apply to the issue of abortion but also to cases of assisted suicide (euthanasia), drug use, even vaccination.

Avatar image for AssertingValor
AssertingValor

10170

Forum Posts

6403

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 64

#16  Edited By AssertingValor  Online

@arranvid said:It is good that Roe v Wade is being overturned.

Yup, abortion "rights" should be dictated at the State level, which it now is looking like it will be, just like the death penalty.

Avatar image for referee
Referee

29015

Forum Posts

412

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

As a Guy, I promise to 'Never' get Pregnant!

Avatar image for spider-simp
Spider-Simp

887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Ah, America.

Avatar image for faradaysloth
FaradaySloth

17397

Forum Posts

129

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By FaradaySloth
@thekillerklok said:

I don't care much about pro/anti abortion, But Roe Vs Wade was a shit ruling where the court took authority for itself that should instead belong to the other two branches of government, based on some wonky logic.

Therefore the overturning of such a ruling, should be seen as a correction of law first in my opinion.

Even RBG shitted on it. Abortion has no place in the Courts if it's such a heavy, polarizing issue. Ironically now the issue of abortion is actually up to the people aka women themselves, in deciding on what to do with it when they enter the ballot boxes, assuming Roe does get overturned and that Alito doesn't walk back on his promise.

Avatar image for alavanka
Alavanka

3368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By Alavanka

I am torn.

On one hand, I like the idea of killing babies

On the other hand, I hate the idea of women getting to choose.

Avatar image for leonhardt
Leonhardt

3423

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Unfortunate, but it's to be expected. The SCOTUS is a political body; they make decisions in line with their political beliefs. I think it's been clear for a while that they've been shooting for this, with Republican states showing renewed interest in passing laws to push the issue every time another Right wing judge was added to the bench.

Some of the language of their opinion was a little sus, enough to justify rolling back other rights.

As far as abortion goes, Blue states will likely keep the right. And maybe people in red states with money and means to travel will just be able to go to travel to a Blue state to get one if they need it or something.

Avatar image for killianduclark
KillianDuclark

13003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By KillianDuclark

Well it's no long a "may".

A now a solid "has"

Let the shit storm commence

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

24045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I want to have faith in this country, believe me I do, but it's getting harder and harder for me to deny that we're slowly becoming a theocracy.

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

24045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Like, seriously Republicans, are you just okay with the Supreme Court essentially saying "government can now control people's bodies?"

Avatar image for king_majestros
king_majestros

3611

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Finally.

- Your King, Majestros.

Avatar image for killianduclark
KillianDuclark

13003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrmonster:

Question from a non-American.

Do you legitimately think this is sign of America becoming a theocracy?

And why are you acting like abortion in all it's form is banned? From what I gather, this now makes abortion a state issue. A lot of American states will likely maintain abortion and the remaining few will allow it but with heavier restrictions. What's wrong with this set up

Avatar image for reaperthegrim
ReaperTheGrim

3666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrmonster: Democrats were perfectly happy with the government forcing people to inject chemicals into their bodies. Don't pretend the left actually cares about body autonomy when it's against their interest.

Also, you don't seem to actually understand what Roe. v. Wade is, and what it means for it to be overturned.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

12804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Like, seriously Republicans, are you just okay with the Supreme Court essentially saying "government can now control people's bodies?"

from the age of 18-35 men can be drafted into war at any moment.

compared to that, overturning a bizarre ruling that used a bizarre medieval concept about souls to legislate from the bench , and letting states just make their own damned laws like the system was intended, seems pretty minor.

Folks are losing their minds over this in dumb ass ways. Screaming shit that is simply ignorant.

Avatar image for flashpoint98
Flashpoint98

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Nothing will change, just the states whose residents don’t want abortion will vote on it for there representatives to ban it. The majority and blue states will still be pro abortion. Now Republicans are calling for federal ban on abortion. In 2024, when Republicans take total control of the US government, this ban will be enacted. When that happens, a number of blue states will openly defy that federal law. Then the real crisis begins. Does a Republican federal government allow states to openly defy federal law, or do they enforce that law with military force? Do defiant blue states choose to defend themselves militarily, if attacked? Do they secede?

Children are a punishment for promiscuity. Don't want to have to raise a little money sucking asshole, don't have frivolous sex.

Avatar image for unhappy-hyena
Unhappy-Hyena

251

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@alavanka said:

I am torn.

On one hand, I like the idea of killing babies

On the other hand, I hate the idea of women getting to choose.

I´m gonna use that

Avatar image for loggy90
loggy90

191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nothing will change, just the states whose residents don’t want abortion will vote on it for there representatives to ban it. The majority and blue states will still be pro abortion. Now Republicans are calling for federal ban on abortion. In 2024, when Republicans take total control of the US government, this ban will be enacted. When that happens, a number of blue states will openly defy that federal law. Then the real crisis begins. Does a Republican federal government allow states to openly defy federal law, or do they enforce that law with military force? Do defiant blue states choose to defend themselves militarily, if attacked? Do they secede?

Children are a punishment for promiscuity. Don't want to have to raise a little money sucking asshole, don't have frivolous sex.

This ^

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By dshipp17

Well, things like this is why I'm always nervous when I see an order or decision in one of my dockets; no matter how sound I make out a filing supported by administrative and court precedent, facts, information, and evidence, I'm always nervous and still pursuing my employment litigation case right now, when I should have won my case within a 4 month period. We'll see fair and just judgments at the Judgment Seat of Christ, as Christians, and then fair and just judgments issued for non-believers at the Great White Throne Judgment.

I've been enduring things like this for some time now ( 15 plus years), where you can't be confident in a just result and fair decisions in your case, particularly without an attorney looking out for your best interest, even though that isn't particularly the issue that accounts for my situation, even though it's also there. Just because something is said about you doesn't mean that it's true, except now some can understand that it's not a joke, now that you're affected. I'm not that shocked, because, for me, you're 15 plus years behind the curve of what I've been experiencing, as just an innocent employee, as I've always been Christian, just starting off his career path that he'd earned in college and university with two bachelor degrees and a minor; soon, the stealthy things behind my back from the envious caught up to me; the god of this world is the devil; I pray for and receive God's protection, as a true Christian. I wouldn't be where I am currently, if everything was all fair and just in the US civil administrative and legal systems, as I'm as authentic as I claim to be, although I can sin from time to time. While you can look at these precedential decisions, just look at those non-precedential civil administrative and judicial decisions, you'll probably find yourself startled.

Avatar image for kurt_saulenne
kurt_saulenne

544

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrmonster: Don’t ask that as if Liberals are in any way, shape, or form, superior to anyone. The laundry list of absolute nonsense that this country entertains due to their actions, makes it very, very difficult for me to take them seriously.

OT: To answer your question - government is far too involved in aspects of our lives. And that isn’t because of a single voting party. We give them too much power already, even way before this. That’s the concerning part.

Avatar image for comicgirl21
ComicGirl21

3344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

As a woman who bangs complete strangers all the time and doesn't mean to have kids, EVER, I absolutely hate...

...the fact that it wasn't done sooner lmao.

And not because I want to get involved in the whole choice vs life debate. Nah lol, keep me far away from it. It was simply always silly to me that abortion was being considered a constitutional right. Sorry, but that's just silly. Roe v Wade was always a nutty verdict that's been 100% political. You want to legalize abortion, do it via congress, move it to the federal level. Stop pretending freaking founding fathers wrote about it hundreds of years ago.

I can't even see what is the whole hysteria about. It's not like anybody can stop people from getting abortions even if all 50 states suddenly made abortions completely illegal. You can't track pregnancies, so you can't track illegal abortions, and even less so - abortions made abroad. They can just take a plane to Mexico or wherever, or hell, just take some ulipristal acetate day after sex they feel might've resulted in something and problem fixed. Nothing's gonna change, and the law is gonna look a lot less silly.

Avatar image for seastone98
seastone98

6635

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By seastone98

I ain't got ovaries so......🤷 no real strong opinions either way I guess

Avatar image for last0fth3risen
last0fth3risen

3844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

As a woman who bangs complete strangers all the time and doesn't mean to have kids, EVER, I absolutely hate...

...the fact that it wasn't done sooner lmao.

And not because I want to get involved in the whole choice vs life debate. Nah lol, keep me far away from it. It was simply always silly to me that abortion was being considered a constitutional right. Sorry, but that's just silly. Roe v Wade was always a nutty verdict that's been 100% political. You want to legalize abortion, do it via congress, move it to the federal level. Stop pretending freaking founding fathers wrote about it hundreds of years ago.

I can't even see what is the whole hysteria about. It's not like anybody can stop people from getting abortions even if all 50 states suddenly made abortions completely illegal. You can't track pregnancies, so you can't track illegal abortions, and even less so - abortions made abroad. They can just take a plane to Mexico or wherever, or hell, just take some ulipristal acetate day after sex they feel might've resulted in something and problem fixed. Nothing's gonna change, and the law is gonna look a lot less silly.

I do agree that Row v Wade stood on some shaky legal grounds, but the problem is, that was all we had. You do not throw away a vest in the middle of drowning, because it has a small hole in it. Better protections should have been put in place before scrapping the only one that was there. That can't happen now, because the republicans did not overturn Row to fix a technicality, they did it to ban abortion, which they can and will now do. Supporting the overturning of Row at this point does not make sense for anyone who's pro-choice.

Making abortion illegal restricts its accessability, and degrades its quality. Now people who need an abortion will have to travel to get it, investing extra time and money, or they will have to settle for whatever is available underground, with no safety or sanitary protocols enforced any longer, and will have to break the law to do it, risking arrest. Treating that as a viable solution, and pretending that nothing has changed, is dangerously optimistic.

Avatar image for leonhardt
Leonhardt

3423

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think it was Thomas' opinion in this recent case stating he wanted to revisit cases that have a similar legal foundation as Roe, including cases related to contraceptives, gay marriage, and sodomy laws. And the Texas GOP's platform recently stated their view that homosexuality is "abnormal." We're probably not too far out from the Court rolling back some of these other rights if a Red state passes a law to provoke some type of challenge, but who knows.

The Supreme Court has so much power because our Government is kind of shit, hopelessly deadlocked most of the time, and unable to get anything done. Roe may have had a weak legal foundation, but it was one of those things I think was better to have in place than be without. More of my two cents.

Avatar image for j_normal
J_Normal

2813

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The amount of emphasis being put into a bundle of formless cells is staggering.

Personhood should only he viable when consciousness develops.

Avatar image for reaperthegrim
ReaperTheGrim

3666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

good

Avatar image for comicgirl21
ComicGirl21

3344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@comicgirl21 said:

As a woman who bangs complete strangers all the time and doesn't mean to have kids, EVER, I absolutely hate...

...the fact that it wasn't done sooner lmao.

And not because I want to get involved in the whole choice vs life debate. Nah lol, keep me far away from it. It was simply always silly to me that abortion was being considered a constitutional right. Sorry, but that's just silly. Roe v Wade was always a nutty verdict that's been 100% political. You want to legalize abortion, do it via congress, move it to the federal level. Stop pretending freaking founding fathers wrote about it hundreds of years ago.

I can't even see what is the whole hysteria about. It's not like anybody can stop people from getting abortions even if all 50 states suddenly made abortions completely illegal. You can't track pregnancies, so you can't track illegal abortions, and even less so - abortions made abroad. They can just take a plane to Mexico or wherever, or hell, just take some ulipristal acetate day after sex they feel might've resulted in something and problem fixed. Nothing's gonna change, and the law is gonna look a lot less silly.

I do agree that Row v Wade stood on some shaky legal grounds, but the problem is, that was all we had.

I honestly think that's a losing argument. Law has to makes sense, otherwise there is no point in even having it. If democrats really care about abortion, they should've federalized it decades ago and not bid everything on a freakin court case. SCOTUS either interprets the constitution or makes up law. They can't be both. If we allow them to just make laws based on their political agendas, I hope you do realize that once republicans have an actual ideological majority there, they can just do whatever they hell they want, so whether you are on one side or the other, SCOTUS doing its job properly is in your best interest, it really goes both ways. Law HAS to make sense, or let's just stop pretending that SCOTUS has any function at all and disband them already, they're just eating the tax dollars.

You do not throw away a vest in the middle of drowning, because it has a small hole in it. Better protections should have been put in place before scrapping the only one that was there.

Yeah, but you shouldn't be surprised that a vest with a hole eventually is the cause of your death. If you float on it for half a century while there's plenty of boats to board around, I'm sorry, but you really had it coming. Like I said, democrats don't give a shit about abortion or pro-choicers. If they did, they would've seen this coming and made "better protections" years ago. How many times they've got supermajority and/or presidency since that verdict? And yet they didn't do crap? Again, all the democrat voters really had it coming.

now, because the republicans did not overturn Row to fix a technicality, they did it to ban abortion, which they can and will now do.

Well, yeah, but they can only do it in their states right? Let them do whatever they heck they want there. If you're a democrat living in a republican state, just move ffs. There always will be democratic states out there to go to.

Supporting the overturning of Row at this point does not make sense for anyone who's pro-choice.

I honestly can't think of any disadvantages for people who live in the democratic majority states. Literally nothing is gonna change for them. And those from the GOP states simply have to travel. That's the only downgrade, ever.

Making abortion illegal restricts its accessability, and degrades its quality.

Yeah, you have to travel, but its not like people didn't before. Not everybody lives a car driving distance from a good abortion clinic ya know. Vast majority of Americans had to fly before yesterday, and will have to fly after yesterday just the same. And when it comes to quality, I can't really agree. When clinics shut down, all the best abortion doctors will be hired by a handful of remaining clinics and the standard will become even higher. Even more so that now they'll have to fight to stay afloat, and rivalry boosts patient care.

Treating that as a viable solution, and pretending that nothing has changed, is dangerously optimistic.

In the end I guess we'll see. But If I were a democrat I wouldn't care much what republicans are doing in the GOP majority states with their abortion laws anyway. If anything, I'd just move to a place that suits me ideologically which is something that people have always been doing, and will be doing.

Avatar image for j_normal
J_Normal

2813

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By J_Normal

Life/Personhood begins and ends with the capability to produce conscious thought.

One thing people in psych related fields push for is for the time of death to be when brain functionality ceases. If brain functionality indicates the end of life I believe it should indicate the beginning of life as well. The person is the mind after all.

Avatar image for last0fth3risen
last0fth3risen

3844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@comicgirl21: There are already republican politicians calling for a federal abortion ban. They can't do it now, but if they win '24, I think that's a legitimate possibility.

But we'll see.

Avatar image for alavanka
Alavanka

3368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By Alavanka

Life begins when the first cell is created.
Consciousness is formed when your brain gets big enough.
Personhood is made up term that really means nothing.

The abortion debate is really whether or not it's okay to kill someone before they're conscious. I really don't care about the answer, but I want the maximum amount of outrage so I can be entertained.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

12804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@comicgirl21: There are already republican politicians calling for a federal abortion ban. They can't do it now, but if they win '24, I think that's a legitimate possibility.

But we'll see.

Maybe don't vote in a president with bad economic policy, and a brain senile enough to enact them. Maybe with that bit of foresight people might still have any degree of faith in the democratic party, and you wouldn't have to worry about anything abortion related being passed pro or con.

Avatar image for faradaysloth
FaradaySloth

17397

Forum Posts

129

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Like, seriously Republicans, are you just okay with the Supreme Court essentially saying "government can now control people's bodies?"

The Supreme Court said the direct opposite lmao

Avatar image for faradaysloth
FaradaySloth

17397

Forum Posts

129

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Solid ruling per usual from the Post-2016 Roberts Court.

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

24045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By mrmonster
@faradaysloth said:
@mrmonster said:

Like, seriously Republicans, are you just okay with the Supreme Court essentially saying "government can now control people's bodies?"

The Supreme Court said the direct opposite lmao

You do realize that state governments (you know, the ones who can now ban abortion) are...well, government, right?

Or do you have even less of an understanding of basic politics than most other conservatives?

Avatar image for faradaysloth
FaradaySloth

17397

Forum Posts

129

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@faradaysloth said:
@mrmonster said:

Like, seriously Republicans, are you just okay with the Supreme Court essentially saying "government can now control people's bodies?"

The Supreme Court said the direct opposite lmao

You do realize that state governments (you know, the ones who can now ban abortion) are...well, government, right?

Or do you have even less of an understanding of basic politics than most other conservatives?

And you do know that the Judicial Branch is indeed government, right?

And you do know that legislators are voted in while judiciary judges are usually appointed, right?

If you bothered to read the Opinion at all, the holding was that the Constitution does not guarantee any right to an abortion and would be left up to voters themselves to decide in elections and whatnot. If your counter is "well State governments can control women's bodies now" then even pre Dobbs v. Jackson governments could already do that under Roe v Wade & PP v. Casey, so your complaint of what you thought the SCOTUS said not only wasn't stated, but it wouldn't matter as that was already in place anyway.

Avatar image for reaperthegrim
ReaperTheGrim

3666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@faradaysloth: I wouldn't bother arguing. These people don't actually understand what it is they're complaining about.

Avatar image for sylviaanimenerd
SylviaAnimeNerd

551

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@j_normal said:

Life/Personhood begins and ends with the capability to produce conscious thought.

One thing people in psych related fields push for is for the time of death to be when brain functionality ceases. If brain functionality indicates the end of life I believe it should indicate the beginning of life as well. The person is the mind after all.

Ladies and gentleman, we've found god on comicvine. The one who can objectively say what is personhood and define life itself. Based on his judgement alone we shall allow human beings to live or declare them worthless trash that can be killed without trail.

That statement is just absurd. How is life in any way connected to consciousness? Are you any less human when you're asleep? Is it okay to kill an mma fighter when he gets KO'd in a ring? It's not just arbitrary, it's absurd.

Not to mention, even by your definition, this means a fetus "becomes" a person around week 5, because that's when brainwaves first appear, so yeah, the fetus is "thinking" in every biological meaning of the word at that point. Week 5 is when most women don't even know they're pregnant yet. They'd just deem it as delayed period for at least a week more, before they start suspecting something. So you'd basically be pro-life with most of the abortion cases anyway.