# Abortion Repeal?



## Marauder06 (May 3, 2022)

Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade, leaked draft opinion shows: report

Interesting article in Politico regarding the leak of a draft decision concerning the potential overturning of Roe vs. Wade.  

I don't have particularly strong views one way or the other on abortion, except that I'm not convinced that legislating its legality/illegality is within the purview of the Federal Government.  The Supreme Court ruled that it is, so I have accepted that.  

My interest is that this decision was leaked, presumably to pressure the Court before an official decision, and that leaks from the Supreme Court don't seem to happen much, or at all.

I'm also interested to find out of the leak is true or not.  If it is overturned, then a whole bunch of past precedent is out the window, which is also rare.  And it seems likely that this would lead to some very, very strong calls for court-packing.  

Whether it is true or not, this could have an impact on the upcoming midterms.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 3, 2022)

That this document was leaked is unprecedented; my understanding is that Politico  went through extreme lengths to verify that it was not a fake.

I would expect, (and hope) that the Chief Justice will leave no stone unturned in attempting to determine the source of this leak.

You expect this behavior and mistrust in Washington overall, you do not expect it from the United States Supreme Court.

This should not have happened.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 3, 2022)

This story is believable, but I don't yet believe it.  Given the media's willingness to print news that is completely false (Russia hoax, many others) and ignore things that are completely true (Hunter Biden's laptop, many others), I remain skeptical.  This leak could have the exact desired effect by being a false story.


----------



## Blizzard (May 3, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> This story is believable, but I don't yet believe it.  Given the media's willingness to print news that is completely false (Russia hoax, many others) and ignore things that are completely true (Hunter Biden's laptop, many others), I remain skeptical.  This leak could have the exact desired effect by being a false story.


Concur. Both legit and fake seem equally viable.

If true, the fact this was leaked is a much bigger concern than the decision itself.

Either way, I personally have an issue with Politico's ethics and decision to publish the info.  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.  This is a huge issue with media today.  To me, they lack integrity.  Politico's decison to publish was clearly self serving.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 3, 2022)

Wow. 

If legality affected rates of abortion, I think this would be ok. Fact is, it doesn’t, and this will cause many women to die who should otherwise live, while probably not saving as many fetuses as people think. 


https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/abortion-worldwide-2017.pdf


----------



## Devildoc (May 3, 2022)

I think (but don't know) that it won't ban abortion; just defederalize it and kick it down to the states.  Like most federal laws, it probably never should have reached that level and was legally ambiguous to begin with.


----------



## Ex3 (May 3, 2022)

This indicates that the justices Trump installed all lied when questioned about their stance on abortion. I thought it was “settled as a precedent,” because “it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.” 🙄


----------



## Devildoc (May 3, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> This story is believable, but I don't yet believe it.  Given the media's willingness to print news that is completely false (Russia hoax, many others) and ignore things that are completely true (Hunter Biden's laptop, many others), I remain skeptical.  This leak could have the exact desired effect by being a false story.



Apparently SCOTUS confirmed it, and word is Roberts is pissed, with a capital "P", which rhymes with "T" with stands for "trouble."


----------



## AWP (May 3, 2022)

The ruling can be cloaked in all of the legalese the SC wants, but this is religion masquerading as law.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 3, 2022)

AWP said:


> The ruling can be cloaked in all of the legalese the SC wants, but this is religion masquerading as law.


In what way?  At the national level, I think that returning this to the States (if that is in fact the decision, I haven't read it yet) is Constitutionally sound.


----------



## Ex3 (May 3, 2022)

I think this is a good opinion piece. The emphasis is mine.

Opinion The leaked draft of the Roe opinion is a disaster for the Supreme Court

By Ruth Marcus Deputy editorial page editor 

“Disaster” is not too strong a word to describe the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade.

*A disaster, most clearly, for the court itself, whose secrecy has been breached in a way that is unprecedented. In my view, overruling Roe would be a disaster — for a court reversing itself after repeatedly reaffirming the right to abortion over half a century, and even more for American women who have come to rely on the right to abortion.*

But I say “most clearly” because we cannot be certain whether that disaster will in fact ensue — if what was labeled “1st draft” of a majority opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. that was circulated Feb. 10 will remain the majority opinion of the court.

Keep in mind: Majorities, particularly in high-stakes cases such as the Mississippi abortion law at issue, can fall apart. *We don’t know how Politico, which broke the story, obtained the draft. One theory — my leading theory — is that the leak came from the conservative side, possibly from a clerk for a conservative justice concerned that the seeming majority, ready to do away with the constitutional right to abortion, might be unraveling. There was a hint of this last week in a Wall Street Journal editorial warning that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. might be trying to dissuade Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett from voting to overrule Roe outright.* Roberts famously changed his mind after initially voting to strike down the Affordable Care Act in 2012 and “may be trying to turn another Justice now,” the Journal warned. “We hope he doesn’t succeed — for the good of the Court and the country.”

The Journal said its “guess” was that Alito was writing the majority opinion. Is it a coincidence that the Alito draft then leaked to Politico — or is it part of the same campaign to stave off a Kavanaugh or Barrett defection?

*Of course, there are other possible culprits: a liberal clerk furious over the loss of abortion rights, perhaps? That makes less sense.* Not much would be gained by leaking the draft of an outcome that has been expected since December’s oral argument in the Mississippi case, which involves a ban on most abortions after 15 weeks. Does anybody really think the reaction would change the conservative justices’ minds?

Not that this stopped liberal Twitter from hailing the disclosure.

“Is a brave clerk taking this unprecedented step of leaking a draft opinion to warn the country what’s coming in a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt to see if the public response might cause the Court to reconsider?” asked Brian Fallon of Demand Justice, a progressive group that has been pushing for court expansion and other measures to rein in the conservative majority.

And not that it stopped conservative Twitter from naming a particular clerk who had been quoted in a 2017 Politico article by Josh Gerstein, one of the reporters who broke the draft story along with Alexander Ward.

*Sorry, but whoever the source, leaking a draft opinion isn’t bravery — it’s betrayal. I love a leak as much as the next reporter, and kudos to Politico for its scoop, but unlike Congress and the White House, the court can’t function this way. It’s one thing for information to dribble out after the fact about switched votes, but something else entirely for a draft judicial work product to make its way into breaking-news alerts.

And as much as I fear the consequences of the current six-justice conservative supermajority, I’m not prepared to believe the institution should be destroyed, which would be the consequence of a culture of preemptive leaking.*

Now to the impending disaster of the opinion itself, assuming it stands as written. On one level, we knew this was coming, certainly after the questioning in the oral argument showed the other conservative justices seemingly uninterested in following Roberts’s efforts to forge a compromise short of outright overruling. But anticipating a calamity, bracing for its impact, is different from experiencing it. *Reading the draft Monday night was chilling.* *“Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives,” *the draft reads, referring to the 1992 ruling that reaffirmed the core right to abortion. *It might as well have said: The authority to decide whether to continue a pregnancy must be removed from the woman who will have to bear the child and returned to a majority free to impose its moral choices on her.

The court has overruled decisions before, but it has never removed an existing, established constitutional right.* Now, we have every reason to believe it is prepared to do so, and in a way that would give states maximum leeway. If the draft becomes the law of the land, state legislatures will be free to restrict all abortion, in almost all circumstances.

*The only restraint will be whether the law survives the most minimal scrutiny of all: whether it has a rational basis. This means almost nothing. The state’s “legitimate interests,” Alito wrote in the draft, “include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.” A law that barred abortions necessary to save the life of the mother would probably not survive rational-basis scrutiny. That’s about it.

Imagine the 13-year-old raped by her father and forced to give birth to his child. Imagine the desperate mother already unable to provide for her existing children. Imagine the loss of personal autonomy.*

There is one possible sliver of a silver lining in this calamity of a ruling. Alito went out of his way to distinguish abortion from other rights, similarly unstated in the Constitution, such as access to contraception, homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. Abortion, he argued, is “a unique act” because it, unlike the others, implicates potential human life.

“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

You can, perhaps, take some solace in this. Or you could remember that Alito dissented vigorously in the same-sex marriage ruling, arguing that “the Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.” If that sounds alarmingly familiar, it should.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 3, 2022)

Interesting read.  The part about it being a conservative leak doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.  I think the other option proposed is far more likely.

We probably won't have to wonder for long, though.  I suspect that whoever it was will soon be revealed, because they will want to cash in on the celebrity.  Few people do something like this without wanting the world to eventually know about it.


----------



## Devildoc (May 3, 2022)

AWP said:


> The ruling can be cloaked in all of the legalese the SC wants, but this is religion masquerading as law.



I don't think so, and I'll tell you why: 10th amendment.  Plus, there's precedent to defederalizing morality-based laws (drugs, alcohol, etc).  The legal justification at the Supreme Court was very shaky as it was, and that was what legal scholars said 40 something years ago.


----------



## AWP (May 3, 2022)

To answer several posts above, multi-quoting can be, I can't find the word..."unclear"? "disruptive?" Anyway...smart people will figure it out, partisan trolls will seize the moment...

I thought about the 10th Amendment and I understand. It is the "fly in the ointment" for the RvW argument. I guess, what is a State's rights issue and what is a Federal issue? The 10th is strong and I won't deny that, but we're down to a simple argument: a Basic citizen's right to choose vs. whateverthefuck an argument about a fetus entails. I'm not trivializing those, but bringing them to light. Where to do we separate a human rights issue from Federal to State? That's...fuck me, who is making that argument on this forum?

Back to my original post: cut away the 10th Amendment and what do you have, what's the argument? That's seems like a loophole. I'm prochoice, so...we're hanging on the 10th? I get it, but does anyone here on that petard want to admit this isn't about religion?

Does any member want to state this is about religion, knowing that goes against the 1st Amendment? The 10th goes back to my original post: this is religion masquerading law. Change my mind. Seriously. I want to see arguments this is isn't about religion. And all of you members thinking I can make the argument while you sit on the sidelines? Fuck you. Cowards. You morally weak pieces of trash. Stand up, don't hide behind those willing to speak up. For the ruling...Make your voices heard or fuck off. I say that for any topic, but the contentious? Don't be a moral or ethical coward.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 3, 2022)

I mean, I am about as pro-choice as is a thing. I honestly believe staunchly conservative people would be too, if their politics didn’t get mixed with religion. 

I’m not enough of a constitutional law guy to really comment on any of the law stuff. But I’m here to argue about why abortion is good for America.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 3, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> But I’m here to argue about why abortion is good for America.


Just that little part of your sentence I am grabbing onto. 

Generalizing here a bit, but most of the people who are adamant about stopping abortion, are the same folks who are anti-welfare too.  Well guess what Washington DC, you stop these poor (financially) woman from being able to get an easy and safe abortion, you better plan on opening up the coffers after all these unplanned and unwanted babies are born.


----------



## Devildoc (May 3, 2022)

I am anti-abortion, but understand why people think it should be legal, and I am not against the states making laws to support it.  I think that given the 10th amendment, the states should be allowed to decide it, and that it's not necessarily a constitutional issue.  RBG herself said that legally it was a legal house of cards.

Let's pretend for a moment it was about religion.  Precedent has been set that all of the 'morality' laws have been pushed back to the states: alcohol, drugs, even what age kids can legally screw.  

But to be open, this is, like, 35th on my list of issues for which I am going to be concerned about.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 3, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Just that little part of your sentence I am grabbing onto.
> 
> Generalizing here a bit, but most of the people who are adamant about stopping abortion, are the same folks who are anti-welfare too.  Well guess what Washington DC, you stop these poor (financially) woman from being able to get an easy and safe abortion, you better plan on opening up the coffers after all these unplanned and unwanted babies are born.



Exactly


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 4, 2022)

Pretty sure Politico is full of shit. IF this is real... it probably has something to do with the political party in power trying to rile their base with an existential emotional crisis. 

Nothing brings out the rainbow haired cat ranchers like abortion, as morally abhorrent as it is.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 4, 2022)

I’m pretty sure the leak is real. The court’s decision is their decision. I don’t give a tinker’s damn about the women who seek these services. It’s not my business to. 

What I’m most concerned with is the absolute audacity and unmitigated gall it required for this person to actually leak the documents. Chief Justice Roberts has called on the US Marshals to investigate this, and I hope the leaker is tossed in with the January 6th prisoners. Instead, I know the guilty party — most likely a clerk but who knows — will be lauded, their praises sung to the high heavens, and cop a multimillion dollar deal with *insert news agency here* to provide some garbage opinion.


----------



## Cookie_ (May 4, 2022)

The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious one, full stop. Any argument that begins with that is a religious position, regardless of whether that person claims it or not.

Claiming "it's about protecting children" is a bullshit line. If we cared about protecting and providing for children, we would have:

Free pre-k through college
Nationalized Health care
Nationalized paterninty/maternity leave
Housing reform
Increased minimum wage
Free school lunch for all children
Etc etc etc.

It's never been about the children, but always been about religion.

I'd also like to point out that the argument around adoption is similarly tied to religion.
Look at the number of states that still ban second parent adoption/allow adoption agencies to refuse LGBT couples. It's almost like it's not about the kids having a home.


----------



## Devildoc (May 4, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious one, full stop. Any argument that begins with that is a religious position, regardless of whether that person claims it or not.
> 
> Claiming "it's about protecting children" is a bullshit line. If we cared about protecting and providing for children, we would have:
> 
> ...



You are wrong.  At least partially.

You know how abortion control started in this country?  Profit control for physicians.  The original policies codified by the AMA were lobbied in  states to prevent everyone other than non-physicians for doing them.  Then it turned from a money thing into an ethnic thing.  Oh yeah, we codified laws for some ethnicities, made it easier for others.  It didn't become about religion in politics until the late 60s (and really as a platform the 70s).  Then for the religious right it was full-on about religion.

As far as when life begins, that will never, ever be 'settled science.'  So preface the statement about "the idea that human life begins at conception..." with "I think...."

You give me 100 medical providers that say it does I can find 100 that says it doesn't.  Me?  I have no idea.  When fetus becomes viable outside the womb?  Makes sense.  But I believe life starts at conception until it can be proven that it doesn't.

If it sounds like I am pissy, really, I am not.  Like everyone I have friends and family on all sides of this issue, so over the years I have read about it--a lot--to educate myself to the truth, not a politician's or NPR's talking points.

Edited add, I also think the truth is messy and not so simple as 'just religion' or 'just women's rights'.  I am not sure any position has the market on 'truth' or 'rightness' and is almost always approached by one's life-shaped experiences, morals, values, ethics, and cultural-religious beliefs.


----------



## Gunz (May 4, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Just that little part of your sentence I am grabbing onto.
> 
> Generalizing here a bit, but most of the people who are adamant about stopping abortion, are the same folks who are anti-welfare too.  Well guess what Washington DC, you stop these poor (financially) woman from being able to get an easy and safe abortion, you better plan on opening up the coffers after all these unplanned and unwanted babies are born.



Like I've said, I don't feel I have the right to have an opinion on abortion because I have a dick. But it's got to be an option. (_Not_ an option for birth control; there're BC pills, morning-after-pills, IUDs, rubbers), but it has to be an option.

Not to stray too far, but speaking of birth control...in forty or fifty years (or maybe sooner) the world (collectively) is going to have to enforce mandatory birth control programs through tax penalties and incentives because otherwise we'll be killing each other over living space, food and potable water. Ten billion large parasitic organisms are gonna push this rock into the red zone.


----------



## Devildoc (May 4, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Like I've said, I don't feel I have the right to have an opinion on abortion because I have a dick. But it's got to be an option. (_Not_ an option for birth control; there're BC pills, morning-after-pills, IUDs, rubbers), but it has to be an option.
> 
> Not to stray too far, but speaking of birth control...in forty or fifty years (or maybe sooner) the world (collectively) is going to have to enforce mandatory birth control programs through tax penalties and incentives because otherwise we'll be killing each other over living space, food and potable water. Ten billion large parasitic organisms are gonna push this rock into the red zone.



Six kids...slowly back away...


----------



## RackMaster (May 4, 2022)

I'll start by saying this is something that is no one's business but an individual and their doctors.  There's plenty of legitimate and asinine arguments on both sides.  

No matter where you are on this, having it leaked is where people should be outraged and I definitely believe it was funded by one side.  
That one side is looking more and more in sync between our borders. It's pretty convenient timing, your elections and there's a Conservative leadership campaign on right now in Canada.  
There's obvious coordination between "progressive" parties around the world.

This is now the focus in Canadian politics and conveniently takes focus away from Trudeau, avoiding fraud charges.  Going back to the beginning of his time in office.

Some Canadian MPs block motion to recognize ‘freedom of choice’ on abortion - National | Globalnews.ca

Michael Taube: Trudeau may have avoided an RCMP fraud charge, but Conservatives should not let him off the hook

Abortion is also not as accessible in Canada, either.  There's no actual federal law, it was just decriminalized.

Here’s the reality of abortion access in Canada

And don't worry, you can come to Canada for that...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-provide-abortion-access-american-women-1.6440238


----------



## Ex3 (May 4, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Interesting read.  The part about it being a conservative leak doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.  I think the other option proposed is far more likely.


I think it makes a lot of sense. For one, if the left was trying to stir the base, it would've been smarter to wait for the decision which will be closer to November. And who benefits from the leak? I think the right does.

thoughts from a former clerk of the court

"It was a leak from the right to stop Kavanaugh from defecting
According to Politico, a clean majority of four conservative justices voted with Alito, following December’s oral arguments in the Dobbs case. With the three liberal justices are working on dissenting opinions, that leaves Roberts’s position unknown — though it is believed he is trying to find something like a compromise that doesn’t totally destroy Roe. To stop Brett Kavanaugh from swinging and joining Roberts, the leak was meant to pressure him into holding his position and avoid the ire of becoming the Republican-appointed Catholic justice who upheld the right to an abortion."

Putting on my tin foil hat...it was leaked by Ginni Thomas! Is anyone talking her role in the Jan 6 shit show or her husband's refusal to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6 insurrection now?? 🤯😜

As for me, I'm probably going to have to get the new uniform custom made since it likely doesn't come in tall. 🤬
This is not only about religion but about control over women.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 4, 2022)

I can’t help but laugh at the irony. Margaret Sanger was an avowed racist, and yet she’s survived cancellation. Ah, politics…..


----------



## Marauder06 (May 4, 2022)

Ex3 said:


> I think it makes a lot of sense. For one, if the left was trying to stir the base, it would've been smarter to wait for the decision which will be closer to November. And who benefits from the leak? I think the right does.
> 
> *Six months out seems about right to me.  Need some time to fundraise and campaign on this.  Plus it distracts from the President's very low approval rate, inflation, Hunter Biden, the border crisis, Ukraine, etc.  Everyone is talking about this now, and will be for months.  Look how angry people are getting in just this thread.  This isn't going to go away by November.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Muppet (May 7, 2022)

I'll drop this right here. Lol


----------



## amlove21 (May 10, 2022)

*Checks the zeitgeist*

Quick shout out to the COVID experts turned International geopolitics experts turned constitutional law and medical experts. All of those people have had the worst takes, on all those issues, since they started. Which is weird, cause like, you'd think they'd be good at one just from a numbers perspective. 

To think that this discussion is going to be a no-shit national level issue that are going to drive people to vote in November is probably the hardest thing about this issue for me to understand. However, the list of things I don't understand grows daily, so no big surprise there.


----------



## Muppet (May 10, 2022)




----------



## Gunz (May 10, 2022)

It was an abortion, Michael…an abortion!


----------



## amlove21 (May 10, 2022)

Gunz said:


> It was an abortion, Michael…an abortion!


Fantastic Godfather quote here.


----------



## AWP (May 10, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Fantastic Godfather quote here.


We’re up to like 2 good posts a day. You should check back more often!


----------



## Ex3 (May 11, 2022)

Muppet said:


> I'll drop this right here. Lol


Pregnancy isn't contagious.


----------



## Muppet (May 11, 2022)

Ex3 said:


> Pregnancy isn't contagious.



My body, my choice n all, huh?


----------



## Muppet (May 11, 2022)

Oh, I personally don't think government should be involved with a woman's body, anyone's body, mask, abortion, vaccines, none of it. 

But, funny how most that support abortion are the same ones who applaud forced vaccine and mask mandates. My body, my choice goes both ways...


----------



## Ex3 (May 11, 2022)

I think you missed my point...I'm lazy and copy/pasted the below because this young lady states it better than I can. 

"COVID-19 prevention and seeking the right to abortion are on two different ends of the spectrum when it comes to the “my body, my choice” argument. If we’re being honest, COVID-19 prevention and following COVID-19 protocol shouldn’t even be a topic to debate, since it has a ripple effect on the greater community, both nationally and globally. Whereas whether or not someone wants an abortion really doesn’t impact anyone besides the individual(s) involved."

I've always thought that if men could get pregnant, abortions would be available on aisle 4 of every Home Depot.


----------



## Muppet (May 11, 2022)

Disagree. It's spoken like a true socialist, not you, the paragraph provided. The needs for the group, whatever the group is. Whatever happened to personal freedoms? Flu kills, drugs kill, burgers kill, smoking kills. Sure, it's not a pandemic but we can go back and forth on how virtue signaling and hypocritical this entire pandemic this has become.


----------



## Muppet (May 11, 2022)

And yes on one thing. My wife says the same regarding men and pregnancy.


----------



## Devildoc (May 11, 2022)

Ex3 said:


> I think you missed my point...I'm lazy and copy/pasted the below because this young lady states it better than I can.
> 
> "COVID-19 prevention and seeking the right to abortion are on two different ends of the spectrum when it comes to the “my body, my choice” argument. If we’re being honest, COVID-19 prevention and following COVID-19 protocol shouldn’t even be a topic to debate, since it has a ripple effect on the greater community, both nationally and globally. Whereas whether or not someone wants an abortion really doesn’t impact anyone besides the individual(s) involved."
> 
> I've always thought that if men could get pregnant, abortions would be available on aisle 4 of every Home Depot.



That depends on if one's perspective is when life begins.  If you believe that it begins at conception (or at any point up to 40 weeks), then the presumption is that the choice is having a negative effect on another being.  If you don't, then it's immaterial to the argument.  So...the two sides will never come together on that.  Edited to add I believe Margaret Sanger had some pretty..._interesting_ ideas on how abortion affects the greater community.


----------



## Devildoc (May 11, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> *Checks the zeitgeist*
> 
> Quick shout out to the COVID experts turned International geopolitics experts turned constitutional law and medical experts. All of those people have had the worst takes, on all those issues, since they started. Which is weird, cause like, you'd think they'd be good at one just from a numbers perspective.
> 
> To think that this discussion is going to be a no-shit national level issue that are going to drive people to vote in November is probably the hardest thing about this issue for me to understand. *However, the list of things I don't understand grows daily, so no big surprise there.*



Every day I become wiser in that I know less and less....


----------



## Marauder06 (May 11, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> Every day I become wiser in that I know less and less....


Dunning-Krueger Effect

...and a simplified version ;)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 16, 2022)

Wow.  

This one actually took me by surprise; Starbucks must be feeling awful confident about who their targeted demographic is, because they seem to be going out of their way to insert themselves into political issues lately. 

Starbucks to add abortion travel coverage to U.S. health benefits


----------



## TLDR20 (May 16, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Wow.
> 
> This one actually took me by surprise; Starbucks must be feeling awful confident about who their targeted demographic is, because they seem to be going out of their way to insert themselves into political issues lately.
> 
> Starbucks to add abortion travel coverage to U.S. health benefits



Cheaper to pay for an abortion than maternal healthcare and a absentee employee.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (May 20, 2022)

I can't imagine the Right thought they would benefit from leaking this.  Something like this could galvanize both minority & women swing voters to the polls this coming election cycle and the next and not in their favor.

The impact of reversing Roe V Wade to women in lower income socioeconomic demographics, most especially latina and black women is staggering.   This is another way to ensure the wage gap keeps spreading and keep the lower income down.  I can't compare it directly to slavery, but it definitely has crippling effects on the current & next few generations in several segments of American society as the lasting impact the institution of slavery has done.  Even if it's not about religion for some, it's about ensuring their way of life at the cost of others.  

I couldn't agree more with Cookie's, EX's & AWP's posts.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." Sister Joan Chittister


----------



## amlove21 (May 20, 2022)

So- let me see if I am clocking this correctly. 

Roe vs Wade, one of the most historically shitty Supreme Court decisions ever filed, may be overturned if we believe this leaked document (no reason not to, but hey, its the world). In practice, this means that the states will again rule what happens in respect to abortion individually. Some states will impose greater restrictions; some will have none; some may make it illegal. Except for the third option- this is _already the case. _

If you would like to be able to abort your child in the birth canal because "I don't feel like I want to have a baby, this is impacting my mental health", I would like to suggest moving to California or New York, where those 3rd trimester abortions are legal. If the reporting is true- those states or your employer may actually pay for you to go to those states to get the procedure. 

If you would like to live in a place that passes the strictest abortion laws on record? Oklahoma. Everywhere else will probably fall somewhere in the middle and the American people can choose to live wherever they'd like. 

I am having a hard time with the emotional appeals, obvious politically-driven agendas, wild slippery slope type arguments, extrapolations on 2nd/3rd order impacts, misunderstanding (or in some cases malicious misrepresentation) of polling, the outsize focus on the smallest fringe cases (incest, rape, verified genetic defect of the fetus), religious arguments, cognitive dissonance- the whole thing.

I suppose I just need to internalize further and get some more information. Thanks to all for rounding out this nuanced argument. 

***Oh- and I am allowed to have an opinion on this, because "woman" is not able to be defined and men can get pregnant and have abortions. Just wanna make that clear***


----------



## Bypass (May 21, 2022)

All repealing Roe will do is send the decisions on abortion back to the states and the people where it belongs. ROE Vs WADE was never a constitutional right to be decided by the SCOTUS to begin with.


----------



## Gunz (May 21, 2022)

Bypass said:


> All repealing Roe will do is send the decisions on abortion back to the states and the people where it belongs. ROE Vs WADE was never a constitutional right to be decided by the SCOTUS to begin with.



I agree. The hysteria is just that. Put the coathangers back in the closet.


----------



## Zulien (May 23, 2022)

I really don’t care about abortion, if anything it’s the last form of eugenics we have. Western countries already have a demographic and intelligence decline problem

However strictly Con Law speaking, the constitution provides nothing on the topic of abortion


----------



## Marauder06 (May 23, 2022)

Zulien said:


> I really don’t care about abortion, if anything it’s the last form of eugenics we have. Western countries already have a demographic and intelligence decline problem
> 
> However strictly Con Law speaking, the constitution provides nothing on the topic of abortion


Exactly.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 8, 2022)

So, like it's a crime to protest outside a Federal Judge's home, but Psaki was instigating that shit awhile back: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534568457370583046
Just, you know, Democrats casually inciting people. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534562557419192321
And now... Man claiming he prepared to kill Brett Kavanaugh was angry over Roe v. Wade


----------



## Zulien (Jun 8, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> So, like it's a crime to protest outside a Federal Judge's home, but Psaki was instigating that shit awhile back:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh you didn’t hear? That’s a right wing conspiracy propagated by Tucker Carlson and the Kremlin 🤪


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

Zulien said:


> I really don’t care about abortion, if anything it’s the last form of eugenics we have. Western countries already have a demographic and intelligence decline problem
> 
> However strictly Con Law speaking, the constitution provides nothing on the topic of abortion



I'm not taking a side here, because I don't feel that abortion is my problem. Just pointing out that the argument is whether abortion is murder or not.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 9, 2022)

I am against abortion, but, I'm also against any government having a say what a woman does to her body. 

I understand that for a small few, abortion may be necessary but, using it as birth control or having some fat fucking politician/government tell anyone on what to do with their body is tyranny. 

Same goes for vaccines.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

Muppet said:


> I am against abortion, but, I'm also against any government having a say what a woman does to her body.
> 
> I understand that for a small few, abortion may be necessary but, using it as birth control or having some fat fucking politician/government tell anyone on what to do with their body is tyranny.
> 
> Same goes for vaccines.


Pretty much sums it up. I believe in freedom, but we all have to live and die  with the choices we make.


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2022)

The Constitution doesn’t address medical care, but states aren’t telling you that putting a cast on a broken arm is a Constitutional issue.

If you say this is medical care, you then have one hurdle to overcome. This comes down to whether you think abortion is or isn’t murder. That distinction is “when does life begin.” 

I stand by my earlier post: this topic is religion masquerading as law. I’ll bet a dollar most pro-lifers are hiding behind the 10th Amendment when their true motivations are religious in nature. They also won’t say that, and that makes them cowards.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

AWP said:


> I stand by my earlier post: this topic is religion masquerading as law. I’ll bet a dollar most pro-lifers are hiding behind the 10th Amendment when their true motivations are religious in nature. They also won’t say that, and that makes them cowards.


I think this is very true. I'm not a very good Christian, but I'll admit that any reservations I have about abortion are definitely religious in nature. I don't want to be on the wrong side of this.


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2022)

Topkick said:


> I think this is very true. I'm not a very good Christian, but I'll admit that any reservations I have about abortion are definitely religious in nature. I don't want to be on the wrong side of this.



Your religious views give you the right to tell someone what they can do with their body? That’s insane and probably illegal.

Credit where it is due though: you manned up and admitted that religion is driving your opinions.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 9, 2022)

The whole "my body, my choice" argument is so full of holes it's practically transparent.  Like so many things, the government (both federal and state) is very hypocritical in that regard.

I maintain that the religious aspect is just one aspect, and to me, the least defensible.

Edited to add, how this is a federal/constitutional issue continues to flummox me (admitting I am not a lawyer); especially when even liberal judges feel SCOTUS overreached in R v W.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

AWP said:


> Your religious views give you the right to tell someone what they can do with their body?



No. I've clearly stated above that I believe in freedom of choice and that its not my problem or decision what anyone else does with their body.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 9, 2022)

AWP said:


> The Constitution doesn’t address medical care, but states aren’t telling you that putting a cast on a broken arm is a Constitutional issue.
> 
> If you say this is medical care, you then have one hurdle to overcome. This comes down to whether you think abortion is or isn’t murder. That distinction is “when does life begin.”
> 
> I stand by my earlier post: this topic is religion masquerading as law. I’ll bet a dollar most pro-lifers are hiding behind the 10th Amendment when their true motivations are religious in nature. They also won’t say that, and that makes them cowards.


If the life is viable, it's no longer "your body".  If someone can't make the decision before mid-second trimester, they're just killing a human being.  I've dealt with enough friends and family who've miscarried and the impact it has on them.  We've had members on this board who's spouses or partners have miscarried. 

But we could go back to the whole personal responsibility piece of contraception.


----------



## Zulien (Jun 9, 2022)

AWP said:


> Your religious views give you the right to tell someone what they can do with their body? That’s insane and probably illegal.
> 
> Credit where it is due though: you manned up and admitted that religion is driving your opinions.



All laws are based upon morality and ethics, all morals and ethnics are subjective (they’re not objective tangible things) and do not exist. Groups develop shared values and ethics, but that doesn’t make them *real* 

I’m assuming you’re some sort of secular humanist or something. That has the same facets of a religion. Congratulations, you’re not above it all. You want your own ethics and values legislated too unless you’re some edgy teenager who posts about Max Stirner.


----------



## Zulien (Jun 9, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> If the life is viable, it's no longer "your body".  If someone can't make the decision before mid-second trimester, they're just killing a human being.  I've dealt with enough friends and family who've miscarried and the impact it has on them.  We've had members on this board who's spouses or partners have miscarried.
> 
> But we could go back to the whole personal responsibility piece of contraception.


This is *the* argument. Where does life begin? 

It has zero to do with broads blabbing on about bodily autonomy. 

Sorry but the state and other power apparatuses have been “telling people what to do with their own bodies” since the dawn of man. And no, the affect on the self vs others is a false dichotomy and a silly lolbertarian notion. 

As far as abortion goes, go for it. It’s a form of voluntary eugenics. The people getting them usually aren’t the most fit to be breeding.

Genesis of Morality and Beyond Good and Evil are good reads for more perspective.


----------



## Zulien (Jun 9, 2022)

Topkick said:


> No. I've clearly stated above that I believe in freedom and that its not my problem or decision what anyone else does with their body.



This is such a lazy response “I believe in freedom” 

What defines freedom? Some sects Marxists define it as being free from hierarchy in relation to economics. “Freedom” from the Capitalist class

American Libertarians have sort of reinvented the word and built off of Austrian economics (both having economics as the axiom of human nature). Hate to break it to you but the founders wouldn’t have agreed in totality with Rothbard. This even splinters into different variations like Hoppe’s version of right-libertarianism 

Certain religious sects define freedom as being free from constrains of a state or entity that is in a power struggle with their faith / religious group identity 

You’re assuming there is a single definition of freedom


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

Zulien said:


> You’re assuming there is a single definition of freedom


Ok, cool.


----------



## Zulien (Jun 9, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Ok, cool.


About as deep as a kiddie pool 🤙🏻


----------



## Topkick (Jun 9, 2022)

This thread is about abortion, so if it wasn't clear, I was simply referring to the freedom to choose. You call it a lazy response? Okay. I didnt intend to debate the broader definition of freedom.


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2022)

Zulien said:


> All laws are based upon morality and ethics, all morals and ethnics are subjective (they’re not objective tangible things) and do not exist. Groups develop shared values and ethics, but that doesn’t make them *real*
> 
> I’m assuming you’re some sort of secular humanist or something. That has the same facets of a religion. Congratulations, you’re not above it all. You want your own ethics and values legislated too unless you’re some edgy teenager who posts about Max Stirner.



LOL.

You clearly know nothing about me and I don't care about you. 

Have a great day.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 9, 2022)

Zulien said:


> As far as abortion goes, go for it. It’s a form of voluntary eugenics. The people getting them usually aren’t the most fit to be breeding.



Lebensborn. —

Sincerely,

Adolf


----------



## DasBoot (Jun 9, 2022)

Zulien said:


> About as deep as a kiddie pool 🤙🏻


You seem pretty riled up. No need to start making this personal or getting snarky. Debate away but responses like this tend to derail a thread.


----------



## Zulien (Jun 9, 2022)

Topkick said:


> This thread is about abortion, so if it wasn't clear, I was simply referring to the freedom to choose. You call it a lazy response? Okay. I didnt intend to debate the broader definition of freedom.


What defines freedom and life  is intrinsically tied to this discussion 


Gunz said:


> Lebensborn. —
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Adolf


Everything I don’t like is Hitler


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 9, 2022)

Zulien said:


> What defines freedom and life  is intrinsically tied to this discussion
> 
> *Everything I don’t like is Hitler*



Well stop using white supremacist talking points then dude.



Zulien said:


> I really don’t care about abortion, if anything it’s the last form of eugenics we have. *Western countries already have a demographic and intelligence decline problem*





Zulien said:


> ...
> As far as abortion goes, go for it. *It’s a form of voluntary eugenics.* *The people getting them usually aren’t the most fit to be breeding.*
> ...



FYI: I don't know jack about you, I'm not calling you (personally) a white supremacist. But if the things you say would be right at home over on stormfront, maybe you should reevaluate what you say/how you say it.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 10, 2022)

Lol, man idk about up or down on the issue. Personally, I think babies are a blessing and should be cherished.  That said their are plenty of "chicks" out there that have no business breathing much less bring a child into this planet. I am not advocating sterilizing people based on their IQ and or stupid ass behavior.  But removing the safety labels in life might be a start.

I will say, if a woman has an abortion,  I don't feel they should get a second chance. Gut that chick and save some o'l boy the child support and heartache.  Rape and incest obviously being an exception to the rule.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 10, 2022)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Lol, man idk about up or down on the issue. Personally, I think babies are a blessing and should be cherished.  That said their are plenty of "chicks" out there that have no business breathing much less bring a child into this planet. I am not advocating sterilizing people based on their IQ and or stupid ass behavior.  But removing the safety labels in life might be a start.
> 
> I will say, if a woman has an abortion,  I don't feel they should get a second chance. Gut that chick and save some o'l boy the child support and heartache.  Rape and incest obviously being an exception to the rule.



Mate.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 10, 2022)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Lol, man idk about up or down on the issue. Personally, I think babies are a blessing and should be cherished.  That said their are plenty of "chicks" out there that have no business breathing much less bring a child into this planet. I am not advocating sterilizing people based on their IQ and or stupid ass behavior.  But removing the safety labels in life might be a start.
> 
> I will say, if a woman has an abortion,  I don't feel they should get a second chance. Gut that chick and save some o'l boy the child support and heartache.  Rape and incest obviously being an exception to the rule.



Bro. Come on.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 10, 2022)

I'm not gonna defend my opinion, because its obviously insanely provoking.  But for curiosity sakes, how many abortions should a chick be allowed,who can't use birth control or safe sex, before as a society we say enough is enough? Just keep killing babies? Just eat a pill, vacuum that lil sucker out and start a new in 6 weeks?

My issues, is the consequences. A babies loses its life, while a dipshit gets to go on, keep keeping on, no shame in the game, until she gets knocked up by the right dude, and gets to tax that ass for 18 years...?

Nah, I think a one and done is pretty rough but yet right. I am not talking about a label and or curse. I am talking social responsibility,  if you can't be responsible enough to own your actions, remove the ability and allow the shit people to die off, peacefully without draining our society and or adding a morally obtuse individual into the mix... someone has to pay, someone has to raise that kid.


And yes I am being provoking for a reason...🤨


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 10, 2022)

Now we have people stalking Amy Coney Barrett. 

'Ruth Sent Us' group hinted at targeting Supreme Court Justice Barrett's children, church | Fox News

Our friend AOC is actively campaigning against the protection of Supreme Court justices.

AOC Brags She Helped Stop Bill To Protect Supreme Court Justices Following Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 16, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Ok, cool.





Zulien said:


> About as deep as a kiddie pool 🤙🏻


I looked at your post numbers and time here and realized that this piece of culture isn't readily apparent to you- let me clarify a bit of "inside baseball". 

Here on the board, when it's obvious that someone's rhetoric and nonsense are impenetrable to logic or resistant to intellectually honest discourse, it's a norm to respond "Cool!" and move on. It's a shorthand to say, "While your ideas may have merit, you're fielding those ideas like a world class gaping asshole, and whatever message you're trying to convey is lost in you being a twat". 

You can apply that information however you'd like.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 24, 2022)

Overturned.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 24, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Overturned.


There will be blood.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 24, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> There will be blood.



Agreed sir.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 24, 2022)

I expect Trudeau to make some stupid announcement.  Probably offering citizenship for every abortion refugee.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 24, 2022)

There’s a run on coat hangers at Dollar General.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 24, 2022)

Gunz said:


> There’s a run on coat hangers at Dollar General.


----------



## AWP (Jun 24, 2022)

Gunz said:


> There’s a run on coat hangers at Dollar General.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 24, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> I expect Trudeau to make some stupid announcement.  Probably offering citizenship for every abortion refugee.


Winner winner, chicken dinner!


----------



## Muppet (Jun 24, 2022)

I gotta be honest, I don't support or agree with abortions, but, I also don't believe any government should have a say in what women do with their bodies, let alone any human being.

It's medical tyranny. What's the answer?


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 24, 2022)

Muppet said:


> I gotta be honest, I don't support or agree with abortions, but, I also don't believe any government should have a say in what women do with their bodies, let alone any human being.
> 
> It's medical tyranny. What's the answer?



If we're doing safe injection sites and handing out free narcan, why not free plan B?  Or just leave it ambiguous and let private clinics offer the service.  That's exactly how it's handled here.

Although it's available in Canada, it's not a protected right either.  Trudeau should shut his hole, unless he's willing to open that shitstorm here and make it law.  Even though many support it, I'm willing to bet many Canadian's; especially new immigrants, won't support it.  

Canadian women have right to an abortion, Trudeau says. But it's not enshrined in the charter
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/abortion-rights-canada-morgentaler-court-1.6439612


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 24, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> There will be blood.


Especially with Thomas' concurrence basically begging for cases to overturn Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell (or contraceptions, same sex relationships, and same sex marriage), because they were all decided in a similar way to Roe. 
He for some reason didn't mention Loving (interracial marriage) even though that was also decided under the same parameters; I'm sure it's just an oversight and not at all his Religious views influencing him.

The conservatives already knew overturning Roe would cause a shit storm, but at least abortion is still a debated issue. For a judge to say he wants to make Sodomy laws legal again and take away access to contraceptives? 
That's fucking crazy to think that won't be an issue with the majority of non-evangelicals.

That alone might galvanize people more than overturning Roe does.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 24, 2022)

What judge is saying he/she wants to reinstate sodomy laws and ban contraceptives?

Edited to add:  ok I understand what you mean.

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court should reconsider contraception, gay marriage rulings


----------



## Gunz (Jun 24, 2022)

Problem solved.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 24, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> What judge is saying he/she wants to reinstate sodomy laws and ban contraceptives?


Thomas, in his concurrence. He implies that all of those cases were also bad law like Roe and should be "corrected". 

Do I think it'll ever happen? Probably not, but the idea he's even suggesting that is pretty extreme.

Edit: I see you caught it right before I commented.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 24, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> for some reason didn't mention Loving (interracial marriage) even though that was also decided under the same parameters; I'm sure it's just an oversight and not at all his Religious views influencing him.



He's in an interracial  marriage, so I doubt it has much to do with religion.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 24, 2022)

My concern is with the no exception laws in many states. 

A D&C which my ex wife had early in pregnancy medical emergency is now illegal in the state she had it. We were two willing and consenting people trying to get pregnant. The D&C was to prevent further trauma from an unenviable pregnancy.  That further trauma would have led to infection or loss of some reproductive organs. So what the hell do we do now? 

It’s also troubling that their are not robust social structures to help various marginalized populations through pregnancies. Child abuse / child pregnancy is a concern. Foster care systems are hit and miss. Adoption agencies are not robust and expensive, and family units cannot be always relied upon to care for children. 

We can’t be robust as a society if we’re absolutist with structures to account for life, because life certainly is not black and white. Reproductive health should not be this damned hard.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 24, 2022)

Topkick said:


> He's in an interracial  marriage, so I doubt it has much to do with religion.


I think you misunderstood what I was getting at; I'm saying that his targeting of contraception, sodomy laws, and same sex marriage is likely based in religious views and not his stated opinion on due process. 

The court case that allowed interracial marriage was also decided on the same due process claim he says needs reviewed, but he doesn't mention that case in his examples.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 24, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I think you misunderstood what I was getting at; I'm saying that his targeting of contraception, sodomy laws, and same sex marriage is likely based in religious views and not his stated opinion on due process.


I hope you'll allow me to rephrase your comment to make sure I understand. 

"_Contrary to Justice Thomas's stated opinion, I am saying that his ruling is likely based in his religious views, and not on his judicial opinion of due process."_

If that is a correct re-statement of your point, could you flesh it out for me? How did you come to that opinion? Are there other examples you can present of Justice Thomas "likely" passing rulings "based in his religious views"?

I am probably ignorant on this one- I look forward to your illumination.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 24, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> I hope you'll allow me to rephrase your comment to make sure I understand.
> 
> "_Contrary to Justice Thomas's stated opinion, I am saying that his ruling is likely based in his religious views, and not on his judicial opinion of due process."_
> 
> ...


Edit: I apologize at the top, this is a much longer post than I intended it to be.

I am specifically saying that his choice of cases that should be revisited is based in his religious views, not his legal views. His ruling here reflects his longstanding veiw that the constitution grants no right to privacy and that the concept of substantive due process is wrong.

Griswold established the "right to privacy"(not due process) which allowed Roe. Roe in turn expanded both the concepts of due process and right to privacy that would eventually allow for Lawrence and Obergefell to be decided.
He's arguing that, because the due process and right to privacy used in Roe is "demonstrablely erroneous", these cases that use these precedents should be overturned.

So, my reasoning for stating that has to do with religion and not his legal theory is based in looking at the cases he chose to use as references and how those topics are looked at by Evangelic Christians(EC) and Conservative Catholics(CC).

Pretty easy off the jump, both EC and CC are pretty anti everything homosexuality.
The topic of same-sex marriage(Obergefell) is still one that has significant push back in a number of states, most recently in the news was Tennessee and the attempt to iintroduce a bill there that would create a seperate class of marriage just for hetero-couples.
Roe, Lawrence, and Griswold were all cited in this decision, so that's how they tie in here.

The same EC/CC mindset is likely why he brings up the case regarding sodomy laws(Lawerence). Now, outside of some real extreme religious circles, I've never seen any push to reinstate these laws. However, Thomas was on the court for this case; he dissented under the idea that there is no right to privacy (Griswold) in the Constitution. Roe was also cited in this case as well.

Lastly, contraceptives(Griswold). This one seems pretty out there until you spend time in CC circles. The official policy of the Catholic Church is still Humanae Vitae, which states that all forms of artifical contraception are inherently going against God's will.
This case was one of the first to establish the idea of a "right to privacy" and is vital to the other cases.

Now, from how Thomas writes his dissent, it's pretty clear he wants to overturn cases decided by the due process clause or "right to privacy".

Griswold makes sense from that prespective; it set a precedent which was later used in Roe and these other cases.

Lawerence and Obergefell don't though. They didn't really set any major precedent in regards to privacy or due process. The only thing that makes these two cases stand out from any other is that they both occurred during his time on the bench, he dissented in both under religious liberty and lack of due process views, and they both involve gay people.

You think if you wanted to revisit cases that started the right to privacy and due process, you'd go for both of the ones that set the precedent? That's what he's doing with Griswold and privacy.

Now, what case had the largest impact on the view of the due process clause that Thomas doesn't support? What played a larger role in Obergefell than Roe or Griswold? What helped expand the concept that caused the decision in Lawerence?

Loving V. Virginia


Loving was one of first cases to really expand due process to this level. The concepts of this case were fundamental in Roe, Lawerence, Obergefell, and basically every other case decided by "the due process clause of the 14 Ammendment".

If Thomas truly felt that the use of the due process clause is fundamentally flawed, this is the case to try and overturn. It's the first domino to overturning every other case he's dissented on those grounds.

Loving happens to be the case that legalized interracial marriage.

So if Thomas doesn't believe in this reading of due process and feels it should always be a state issue, why avoid this case? Overruling the precedent set here would negate Obergefell and Lawerence outright.
It's almost like his legal theory doesn't apply to cases in which he would be affected, but only in cases which don't match his religious views.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 24, 2022)

Apparently, pro-abortionists stormed Wisconsin's state capitol. Feds/state is hush on it. Guess, "insurrection" only happens if folks are wearing stupid, horned hats and not pink, vagina hats. Lol


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 24, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Apparently, pro-abortionists stormed Wisconsin's state capitol. Feds/state is hush on it. Guess, "insurrection" only happens if folks are wearing stupid, horned hats and not pink, vagina hats. Lol



My chick was just telling me people are protesting in Salt Lake City as well. I guess the dumbass people are too busy to realize this was a "federal Supreme Court" ruling and had nothing to do with state level government...🙄

Pink hair, armpit hair, fucking face attacked my a nail gun, screaming at the top of her lungs, "dad I can't believe you didn't take mom's birth control for her, how could you allow me to be born into this world"...🤦‍♂️

I swear these stupid ass motherfuckers are getting dumber and dumber by the day.😏


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 24, 2022)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> My chick was just telling me people are protesting in Salt Lake City as well.* I guess the dumbass people are too busy to realize this was a "federal Supreme Court" ruling and had nothing to do with state level government*...🙄


Utah has a trigger law which immediately bans abortion in the state. So it's absolutely has to do with state level government right now.

It's almost like the dumbass is the person who doesn't realize that this immediately became a state level issue and people are aware of that.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 24, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Utah has a trigger law which immediately bans abortion in the state. So it's absolutely has to do with state level government right now.
> 
> It's almost like the dumbass is the person who doesn't realize that this immediately became a state level issue and people are aware of that.


Awwww, sounds like those people should've picked a different state to go kill their babies in...🤷‍♂️


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 25, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Apparently, pro-abortionists stormed Wisconsin's state capitol. Feds/state is hush on it. Guess, "insurrection" only happens if folks are wearing stupid, horned hats and not pink, vagina hats. Lol



Stormed might be a pretty strong word for a 100 or so people on both sides of the issue in front of the capitol building.

Hundreds gather at rally in reaction to SCOTUS decision overturning abortion rights


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 25, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Apparently, pro-abortionists stormed Wisconsin's state capitol. Feds/state is hush on it. Guess, "insurrection" only happens if folks are wearing stupid, horned hats and not pink, vagina hats. Lol


----------



## AWP (Jun 25, 2022)

R.Caerbannog said:


> View attachment 39746



Dude, that rebuttal rocks! If it hit any harder no one would believe any different, they would only have pink hats.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 25, 2022)

AWP said:


> Dude, that rebuttal rocks! If it hit any harder no one would believe any different, they would only have pink hats.


You should have your humor modulator looked at. I actually like @Muppet , he's done me no wrong.


----------



## Kaldak (Jun 25, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Stormed might be a pretty strong word for a 100 or so people on both sides of the issue in front of the capitol building.
> 
> Hundreds gather at rally in reaction to SCOTUS decision overturning abortion rights



@Muppet Also.

This is a case of don't always believe what you read.

First, our Capitol building is open to general public until 6pm local time. Hard to storm something not off limits.

Second, I personally saw the crowds. My watering hole of choice is directly across the street from the standard site of protests and rallies at the Capitol. Total crowd was ~900 participants. Normal for most spur of the moment stuff during the SUMMER. No students.

Pro-life was small, maybe 100 to 150 tops. Pro-choice was around 800+ according to my friends in the police department.


----------



## Topkick (Jun 25, 2022)

Kaldak said:


> @Muppet Also.
> 
> This is a case of don't always believe what you read.
> 
> ...


I read an article saying there were guns, specifically a pro-choice woman carrying an AK. Any inside poop on that?

'It's not over': With signs and guns, hundreds rally in Downtown Madison to protest end of Roe


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 25, 2022)

Kaldak said:


> @Muppet Also.
> 
> This is a case of don't always believe what you read.
> 
> ...



Yeah one minute of google search is all it takes sometimes.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 25, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Utah has a trigger law which immediately bans abortion in the state. So it's absolutely has to do with state level government right now.
> 
> It's almost like the dumbass is the person who doesn't realize that this immediately became a state level issue and people are aware of that.


A lot of burning underwear.


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 25, 2022)




----------



## Kaldak (Jun 25, 2022)

Topkick said:


> I read an article saying there were guns, specifically a pro-choice woman carrying an AK. Any inside poop on that?
> 
> 'It's not over': With signs and guns, hundreds rally in Downtown Madison to protest end of Roe



Happens at all the time. Usually the other side with open carry pistols. Perfectly legal without permit to open carry here. Concealed requires a permit and a "class".


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 25, 2022)

Chopstick said:


> View attachment 39750



Cuts both ways though no?


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 25, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Cuts both ways though no?


Interestingly, I was just thinking...
I see that Dick's Corporation among other companies is stating that they will assist employees in travel costs and expenses to obtain abortions.  I was wondering, do these companies cover IVF/infertility services currently?  The ACA does not require infertility treatment to be covered under the ten essential benefits.  So the States take up that that issue, or not.  Apparently,  some States can require insurance carriers to "offer" infertility treatments but some can require insurance carriers to "cover" infertility treatment.  I'm  actually just taking a look around at the different State's criteria at the moment.  But getting to my point.  I wonder now, if companies are going to be covering abortion expenses, could employees then demand that their IVF/infertility treatment expenses (which are mostly out of pocket) be reimbursed?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 26, 2022)

Controversial/uncontroversial opinion. 


This is all Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fault.


----------



## Stretcher Jockey (Jun 26, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Controversial/uncontroversial opinion.
> 
> 
> This is all Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s


I’ve seen a few people post the same. Is this because she didn’t retire during Obamas presidency, and instead passed away during Trumps?

It’s almost like term limits could’ve (possibly) prevented our current predicament….


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 27, 2022)

Wonder where they're at in the search for the person that leaked the draft a.month or so ago?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 27, 2022)

Once I had it explained to me in detail, I decided RBG was right, in my opinion. Roe was sloppy case law. 

Had the case been presented under the equal protection clause of 14A, it would have been much harder to overturn. While it mentioned Palko v. Connecticut, and cited two cases that passed the Palko test, Roe itself did not attach itself to a specific amendment the way Stanley v. Georgia linked to 1A or Katz v. United States linked to the 4th. Nor did Roe prove long standing tradition that is fundamental to our society, such as the right to marry (Maynard v. Hill in 1888). Tradition would have nuked Roe, since abortion has historically been frowned upon by many cultures. 

Loving v. Virginia was passed under equal protection, not due process/right to privacy. While Maynard established the right to marry as an unenumerated right, Loving demonstrated that the right should be applied equally, rendering VA’s prohibition of interracial marriage unconstitutional. 

Had the lawyers arguing in favor of RvW presented the argument that since men can’t get pregnant and are not at risk of dying from pregnancy related complications, but women certainly can and are, it may have gone differently. It would have been a much more solid argument. The treatment of ectopic pregnancies or spontaneous abortions (medical term for miscarriage) that don’t completely pass on their own would be protected by constitutional law if it had been argued that way. 

I’d like to think that RBG was waiting for a litigant to come along that actually gave a damn equal protection, but that’s a stretch.


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 27, 2022)

I was being "lectured" by a 20 something know it all at work the other day.  After all I am just a "boomer".   She was spouting off about how she is not going to let a bunch of "old men" tell her what she can and can't do.  I pointed out that the composition of the SC was a bunch of men and she told me I had no clue what I was talking about.  She didn't have much to say after I had to actually show her a picture.  LOL


----------



## Gunz (Jun 27, 2022)

Chopstick said:


> I was being "lectured" by a 20 something know it all at work the other day.  After all I am just a "boomer".   She was spouting off about how she is not going to let a bunch of "old men" tell her what she can and can't do.  I pointed out that the composition of the SC was a bunch of men and she told me I had no clue what I was talking about.  She didn't have much to say after I had to actually show her a picture.  LOL



20-something know it alls saying stupid stuff could be a thread on its own.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 27, 2022)

racing_kitty said:


> Once I had it explained to me in detail, I decided RBG was right, in my opinion. Roe was sloppy case law.
> 
> Had the case been presented under the equal protection clause of 14A, it would have been much harder to overturn. While it mentioned Palko v. Connecticut, and cited two cases that passed the Palko test, Roe itself did not attach itself to a specific amendment the way Stanley v. Georgia linked to 1A or Katz v. United States linked to the 4th. Nor did Roe prove long standing tradition that is fundamental to our society, such as the right to marry (Maynard v. Hill in 1888). Tradition would have nuked Roe, since abortion has historically been frowned upon by many cultures.
> 
> ...



I didn’t understand a word of this…but I agree with all of it.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 27, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Controversial/uncontroversial opinion.
> 
> 
> This is all Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fault.


I've seen this along with the take that "If Bernie dropped out after Iowa Hillary would have won/Bernie bros caused this."

I think both of these statements are missing the throughline; the mainstream, Neoliberal wing of the Democratic party is dogshit at political maneuvering. Dems had 50 years to pass federal protections; during that time they had super majorities at least twice (Clinton's/Obama's first few years.)

They easily could have passed a 20 week(or whatever timeframe) bill.



racing_kitty said:


> Loving v. Virginia was passed under equal protection, not due process/right to privacy. While Maynard established the right to marry as an unenumerated right, Loving demonstrated that the right should be applied equally, rendering VA’s prohibition of interracial marriage unconstitutional.



Loving did play a role in expanding due process. The opinion held that the marriage was a "basic civil right" and denying that on the basis of race violated due process.

Both the equal protection and due process sections of Loving were used in Obergefell.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 27, 2022)

The Democrat's, just like the Liberal's in Canada; never did the hard work because it's the perfect wedge.  
Painting the right as misogynist, racist, homophobic, blah, blah, blah; oh, my favorite recent one is religious extremist. Is purposely meant to divide the right, ferment the hate for the right and increase the % of swing votes. 
I think they realized it's easier to expand their base through hatred, than it is to actually compromise and make every one happy.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 27, 2022)




----------



## Blizzard (Jun 27, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> View attachment 39754


"Women are going to die, it has already started."
But she lived.

It's really a silly game to play.  I suppose the other side of the coin could also be played as well - children born that otherwise wouldn't have; thus lives saved and given opportunity.

The past few days have nothing but a trigger point for free flow of emotion and unintelligent rants from all angles.

Just my $.02


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 27, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> "Women are going to die, it has already started."
> But she lived.
> 
> It's really a silly game to play.  I suppose the other side of the coin could also be played as well - children born that otherwise wouldn't have; thus lives saved and given opportunity.
> ...



One story in a country of 330 million. It isn’t one in 330 million chance.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 27, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> One story in a country of 330 million. It isn’t one in 330 million chance.


Exactly


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 27, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> "Women are going to die, it has already started."
> But she lived.
> 
> It's really a silly game to play.  I suppose the other side of the coin could also be played as well -* children born that otherwise wouldn't have*; thus lives saved and given opportunity.
> ...


That's an interesting thought.

Anyone have an idea of the number of abortions preformed in the past... let's say 20 years?

Add on: Reason I'm curious, is that China is facing a demographic collapse because they aborted a lot of their females. Makes me wonder what the population effects of R v Wade has been here in the US.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 27, 2022)

R.Caerbannog said:


> That's an interesting thought.
> 
> Anyone have an idea of the number of abortions preformed in the past... let's say 20 years?
> 
> Add on: Reason I'm curious, is that China is facing a demographic collapse because they aborted a lot of their females. Makes me wonder what the population effects of R v Wade has been here in the US.


A quick Google search of CDC stats shows the rate between 2010 and 2019 declined from 14.6 to 11.4; actual numbers 765K annually down to 630K.

Also of interest, despite sensationalism from some, abortion related deaths for pregnant women has always been relatively rare.  In 1973, there were 47 deaths. Keep in mind there's currently ~64M women of childbearing age in the U.S. Here are current stats:
Deaths from abortions U.S. 1973-2018 | Statista


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 28, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> View attachment 39754


Would love for that person to show their face and name. If it's true, that's probably not the purpose of the law in that specific state. Perhaps the doctors should read the statute and make sure their paperwork is perfect.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 28, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Would love for that person to show their face and name. If it's true, that's probably not the purpose of the law in that specific state. Perhaps the doctors should read the statute and make sure their paperwork is perfect.


Yeah, until proven otherwise, I call bullshit on that supposed story given that I've seen it from multiple sources, including some high school kids.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 28, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> A quick Google search of CDC stats shows the rate between 2010 and 2019 declined from 14.6 to 11.4; actual numbers 765K annually down to 630K.
> 
> Also of interest, despite sensationalism from some, abortion related deaths for pregnant women has always been relatively rare.  In 1973, there were 47 deaths. Keep in mind there's currently ~64M women of childbearing age in the U.S. Here are current stats:
> Deaths from abortions U.S. 1973-2018 | Statista


Interesting, thank you!

I checked out Statista and they had a chart with abortions in the US since 1973. The numbers are very interesting. I put the data in the spoiler below as it takes up a lot of space.

A rough calculation from 2019-1990 stands at 25,255,000 abortions and that's from the states that provided data to the CDC. I can only wonder what thh number is in places like California, etc.

Legal abortions number U.S. 1973-2019 | Statista


Spoiler: Screenshots of data









Even more interesting are the number of states whose numbers are not here.
" The following states did not report abortion data to CDC: California (2003–2019), Maryland (2007–2019), New Hampshire (2003–2019), Louisiana (2005), West Virginia (2003–2004). "


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 28, 2022)

Holy fuck, what have we done to ourselves.


----------



## 757 (Jun 28, 2022)

Apparently, when dealing with somebody who's very emotional about Roe...the correct response is not, "Roe was never a viable law anyway, it was just a clump of words."


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Would love for that person to show their face and name. If it's true, that's probably not the purpose of the law in that specific state. Perhaps the doctors should read the statute and make sure their paperwork is perfect.



Well that person could get fired for showing a name and face as that could be construed as a violation of patient confidentiality. Hospitals are absurd with punishments for even perceived violations. 

Go look at the Residency Reddit, and you can find numerous examples of physicians stating that this is happening.

It is fair to be cynical, but I do D and E’s all the time sometimes like 5 in a day. All of them are medically necessary, loss of viability, etc. I have also had the displeasure of being involved in a fetal demise birth. Forcing a woman to carry a fetal demise, or a non viable fetus CAN be more traumatic for the family than a go to sleep and wake up D and E. In my state, at least currently nothing changes. We will see how long that lasts.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 28, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Well that person could get fired for showing a name and face as that could be construed as a violation of patient confidentiality. Hospitals are absurd with punishments for even perceived violations.
> 
> Go look at the Residency Reddit, and you can find numerous examples of physicians stating that this is happening.
> 
> It is fair to be cynical, but I do D and E’s all the time sometimes like 5 in a day. All of them are medically necessary, loss of viability, etc. I have also had the displeasure of being involved in a fetal demise birth. Forcing a woman to carry a fetal demise, or a non viable fetus CAN be more traumatic for the family than a go to sleep and wake up D and E. In my state, at least currently nothing changes. We will see how long that lasts.



Besides all the vocal displeasure with this decision, have you heard of any States doing anything to codify anything in law?  Even if it's just to permit medical necessary procedures?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 28, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Besides all the vocal displeasure with this decision, have you heard of any States doing anything to codify anything in law?  Even if it's just to permit medical necessary procedures?


Most statutes allow for medical emergencies, even the most restrictive ones.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Besides all the vocal displeasure with this decision, have you heard of any States doing anything to codify anything in law?  Even if it's just to permit medical necessary procedures?



Some states had laws that went into effect immediately. There is a state by state breakdown of what has been passed. It includes for medically necessary treatment, rape and incest. 

Abortion laws by state: Where abortions are illegal after Roe v. Wade overturned


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Most statutes allow for medical emergencies, even the most restrictive ones.



Medical emergencies to death of the mother. There are cases where a fetal demise, or unviable fetus are not emergencies, but could become them in such a rapid fashion as to cause death of the mother.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> A quick Google search of CDC stats shows the rate between 2010 and 2019 declined from 14.6 to 11.4; actual numbers 765K annually down to 630K.
> 
> Also of interest, despite sensationalism from some, abortion related deaths for pregnant women has always been relatively rare.  In 1973, there were 47 deaths. Keep in mind there's currently ~64M women of childbearing age in the U.S. Here are current stats:
> Deaths from abortions U.S. 1973-2018 | Statista



Yeah medically performed abortions are very safe. That is a great point.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 28, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Edit: I apologize at the top, this is a much longer post than I intended it to be.
> ...snip...


Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. I can understand why you have that opinion now.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 28, 2022)

The Catholic Church does the world a great disservice by its intolerant policy against any and all contraceptives. Speaking as an Irish-renegade Catholic and former altar boy, The driving force behind this stand is economical not ecclesiastical. The more Catholics born, the more revenue for the corporation.

In the mid 1980’s, when my PTSD was at high peak, my wound still caused pain and the VA was largely unsympathetic, I thought I’d return to the church to seek solace. Feeling hopeful, I attended a mass. A layman got up to the pulpit about halfway through and asked parent’s to take their kids outside. Once the kids were gone, the aborted-fetus slideshow began. That was it for me. Never been back and never will.

I think abortion has to be an option. My sister had one years ago. But we also live in a world where birth control devices and medications are readily available; BC pills, morning-after pill etc…and those alternatives to abortion should be widely encouraged from an early age. Much more so than they are now.

Ultimately, I predict within 50-70 years, mandatory birth control will have to be enacted globally, through tax incentives and penalties, before we start killing each other over food, living space and potable water. Doesn’t hurt to start early.


----------



## Raptor (Jun 28, 2022)

Gunz said:


> But we also live in a world where birth control devices and medications are readily available; BC pills, morning-after pill etc…and those alternatives to abortion should be widely encouraged from an early age. Much more so than they are now.


This is a big part of the issue, too. Granted, my middle school days were a bit over a decade ago, but sex ed was abstinence only. While things may be different now, I highly doubt it. This is in Texas, too, which has a trigger law coming into effect. So there's gonna be the wonderful combination of poor education and no legal access to abortion. I'm not looking forward to seeing what consequences this is going to have in about 20 years.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 28, 2022)

Raptor said:


> This is a big part of the issue, too. Granted, my middle school days were a bit over a decade ago, but sex ed was abstinence only. While things may be different now, I highly doubt it. This is in Texas, too, which has a trigger law coming into effect. So there's gonna be the wonderful combination of poor education and no legal access to abortion. *I'm not looking forward to seeing what consequences this is going to have in about 20 years.*



Yes, no, maybe so.  It'll be interesting for sure.

Along the lines of reversing Roe V Wade, and with much bigger implications, will be West Virginia V EPA.  The two cases mutually underscore the bigger issue of what we want federalized because don't like the state we live in, or don't want the lawmakers to decide.  How far do we want to go to allow the feds, elected, unelected, appointed, or hired, to do our thinking for us?  At least at the state level, there's more skin in the game for citizens to influence decision makers.

I have been pretty silent about this since many pages ago, and I will more or less remain silent.  To quote the Bible, "it is done."  And to your point, quoting the late, great immutable Gus Avrakotos (He of CIA notoriety), "we'll see".


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 28, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> Yes, no, maybe so.  It'll be interesting for sure.


Federalism and freedom are always messy, almost never consistent, and have potential for failure. It's why we have always referred to this thing of ours as the "American Experiment". 

I think once the emotions wear off, what remains will be (for good, bad or indifferent) closer to what the founders intended with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Free citizens choosing their governance in each state (and what state they want to live in) through a body of duly-elected officials through the exercise of free and just process. 

I guess we will all have to manage our response and move forward from here. 

But I agree, Doc. Interesting.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 28, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Besides all the vocal displeasure with this decision, have you heard of any States doing anything to codify anything in law?  Even if it's just to permit medical necessary procedures?



Yes, at least 10 states have completed outlawed it, already. Saw it on the news.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

Gunz said:


> The Catholic Church does the world a great disservice by its intolerant policy against any and all contraceptives. Speaking as an Irish-renegade Catholic and former altar boy, The driving force behind this stand is economical not ecclesiastical. The more Catholics born, the more revenue for the corporation.
> 
> In the mid 1980’s, when my PTSD was at high peak, my wound still caused pain and the VA was largely unsympathetic, I thought I’d return to the church to seek solace. Feeling hopeful, I attended a mass. A layman got up to the pulpit about halfway through and asked parent’s to take their kids outside. Once the kids were gone, the aborted-fetus slideshow began. That was it for me. Never been back and never will.
> 
> ...



All comes back to religion playing an all to active role in American lives. 

I’ve yet to see a cogent, non religious opposition to abortion, from anyone, ever.

The most truly conservative option would be for everyone to have easy access to abortion. If it doesn’t affect me, who gives a fuck.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 28, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> All comes back to religion playing an all to active role in American lives.
> 
> I’ve yet to see a cogent, non religious opposition to abortion, from anyone, ever.
> 
> The most truly conservative option would be for everyone to have easy access to abortion. If it doesn’t affect me, who gives a fuck.



If you have to say "I've yet to see a cogent, non-religious opposition to abortion, from anyone, ever", chances are you've already made up your mind, and you simply don't want to.

There are dozens of arguments; well, maybe not dozens but several, dealing with non-religious aspect of medical ethics and law regarding states rights versus federal that don't even touch upon religious. 

I think your example would be libertarian, but not the classical conservative opinion.  To paraphrase Jefferson, what do I care what my neighbor does as long as he neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> If you have to say "I've yet to see a cogent, non-religious opposition to abortion, from anyone, ever", chances are you've already made up your mind, and you simply don't want to.
> 
> There are dozens of arguments; well, maybe not dozens but several, dealing with non-religious aspect of medical ethics and law regarding states rights versus federal that don't even touch upon religious.
> 
> I think your example would be libertarian, but not the classical conservative opinion.  To paraphrase Jefferson, what do I care what my neighbor does as long as he neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg?



Give me one.

Notice, I said “opposition to abortion”. Not constitutional or states rights. The people who filed this lawsuit are against abortion EVERYWHERE, as in literally on earth. They won via technicality. Tell me why abortion is wrong, and it should be a crime without mentioning anything related to religion. I’m setting the goalpost in concrete.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 28, 2022)

Roe v Wade assumes that the federal government does not live up to the law of the tenth of The tenth amendment; RBG herself thought the law was probably unconstitutional.

Medical ethics regarding the start of viability at somewhere around 23 weeks and fetus becomes a person.

The illogical assumption of "My body, my choice"; there are plenty of laws about what you cannot do to your own body. Try to slit your wrists and see what happens to you. 

I know you don't agree with me, and that's fine. I've got pretty broad shoulders, I'm sure I can handle it.  My point isn't to try to sway you to my side but rather point out when you back yourself into the argument being essentially 'any argument against abortion is rooted in religion', you've already entrenched yourself into your position regardless of any other facts or perspectives.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> Roe v Wade assumes that the federal government does not live up to the law of the tenth of The tenth amendment; RBG herself thought the law was probably unconstitutional.
> 
> Medical ethics regarding the start of viability at somewhere around 23 weeks and fetus becomes a person.
> 
> ...



So to be totally transparent, you agree the government has the ability and right to regulate how a person maintains their body. That it is constitutional? We are discussing medical ethics now. That is the argument?


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 28, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> So to be totally transparent, you agree the government has the ability and right to regulate how a person maintains their body. That it is constitutional? We are discussing medical ethics now. That is the argument?



More than one thing can be right.  I was merely addressing your assertion that there is not a non-religious opposition to abortion.  

But to be totally transparent, I don't like that there are two standards to what the government will allow us to do to our bodies. Suicide itself is not illegal, but attempted suicide is in many places.  So to say that the state can affect one, but not the other is a logical fallacy.  

I never mentioned constitutionality to anything else aside from Roe v Wade, but that argument is not mine alone. The clerk to the justice (Blackmun) who wrote the affirmative opinion in effect said it was legal BS.

Also to be transparent, I don't have the answers here. I don't corner the market on medical ethics or higher philosophy or judicial philosophy. These are my opinions. But you know what? Neither does anyone else here.

So to that end, this is a great debate, but we're not going to get anywhere. So I will tap out and have my chocolate cake.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 28, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> More than one thing can be right.  I was merely addressing your assertion that there is not a non-religious opposition to abortion.
> 
> But to be totally transparent, I don't like that there are two standards to what the government will allow us to do to our bodies. Suicide itself is not illegal, but attempted suicide is in many places.  So to say that the state can affect one, but not the other is a logical fallacy.
> 
> ...



Cake, with ice cold milk???


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 28, 2022)

Muppet said:


> Cake, with ice cold milk???



Is there any other way?? ;)


----------



## Muppet (Jun 28, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> Is there any other way?? ;)



God bless you my son


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 28, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> More than one thing can be right.  I was merely addressing your assertion that there is not a non-religious opposition to abortion.
> 
> But to be totally transparent, I don't like that there are two standards to what the government will allow us to do to our bodies. Suicide itself is not illegal, but attempted suicide is in many places.  So to say that the state can affect one, but not the other is a logical fallacy.
> 
> ...


I can respect that.

Anyone else:


So if one thinks abortion is not ok on constitutional grounds, one must agree that the government, specifically state governments  have the right to tell you to get a vaccine and wear a mask? Right? Or am I misunderstanding?

I’m certainly conflating two arguments. But they aren’t unrelated. I want to hear what our constitutional experts think. I’m not one. But lots of people were bitching about freedom, and they aren’t doing so now, at least not about this.

Alternatively people who don’t agree can just say it’s for religious reasons, and admit they would like their religious viewpoint foisted on everyone else. It’s ok to be honest.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 28, 2022)

Okay so…I’ve been reading this thread for days and nothing I’ve read has changed my opinion on the topic.

- My body my choice.  I’d be curious to know how many people chanting this were the same ones losing their shit when I said the same thing  about wearing a mask or taking the vaccine; but I digress.

At the end of the day, the choice was made to participate in an act that may create a life; a 1 in 400 Trillion chance to have a blink of an eye of existence on the planet.  And that can be snubbed out because … pick a reason.  I have a serious problem with that type of logic.

It’s not a political to me, it’s not religious thing (something I’m really struggling with these days), it’s a human thing.  If we perform the act to create it, we owe ‘it’ the opportunity to exist; because there are no second chances.  From my perspective, abortion is a selfish choice.

Do I need to do the disclaimer that I am not singling out or attacking anyone who may have participated in the thread with a different opinion or shared story?  I hope not.

To add…I get and accept that there are extenuating circumstances, but to use abortion as a form of birth control just feels morally wrong.


----------



## Locksteady (Jun 29, 2022)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Okay so…I’ve been reading this thread for days and nothing I’ve read has changed my opinion on the topic.
> 
> - My body my choice.  I’d be curious to know how many people chanting this were the same ones losing their shit when I said the same thing  about wearing a mask or taking the vaccine; but I digress.


If taking children to term was the closest thing to consensus the international medical community came to on what might have a chance to slow or stop the transmission of a then-unknown, aggressively spreading lethal airborne virus with no known vaccines or cures, probably more than one may think.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 29, 2022)

Locksteady said:


> If taking children to term was the closest thing to consensus the international medical community came to on what might have a chance to slow or stop the transmission of a then-unknown, aggressively spreading lethal airborne virus with no known vaccines or cures, probably more than one may think.


Okay, I’ll concede the Covid stuff because this is not the thread to debate it.  

I stand by my abortion take.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jun 29, 2022)

The idea of having a limit based off of medically assisted viability (think the most premature baby ever was 21 weeks) is more of a legitimate conversation (to me) than these states that have 6 week bans/heartbeat bills.

The first is legit medical ethics, the second is almost always religious based. I'd argue that something around 15-20 weeks with exceptions for the criminal (rape/incest) or extreme medical (Anecephaly, for example) is more than reasonable.

Lots of comparisons have been made between the U.S. and places like Germany that have more limits on abortion. That's true, but it also ignores that those countries have;

Single payer healthcare, maternity/paternity leave, free or subsidized childcare, protections for pregnant workers, better sex education, and freer access to contraceptives, among other things.

All of those things do a lot more to reduce abortion than banning safe abortions do.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 29, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> All comes back to religion playing an all to active role in American lives.
> 
> I’ve yet to see a cogent, non religious opposition to abortion, from anyone, ever.
> 
> *The most truly conservative option would be for everyone to have easy access to abortion. If it doesn’t affect me, who gives a fuck.*


A famous quote attributed to various American authors and politicians, and frequently repeated by the American Left, goes something along the lines of "the true measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members."  You don't have to be religious to concur with such a sentiment.  If you believe the preceding quote, it is hard to see how any member of our society is weaker than an unborn child.  If you believe life begins when a fetus is viable outside of the womb, which is a scientifically-based assessment vs. a religious one ("life begins at conception"), then aborting said child is killing it.  

So if you believe that extra-judicial killing of people is wrong because it interferes with the effective functioning of society, then killing children, i.e. the weakest members of our society, via abortion, is morally wrong.  That is a totally values-based, secular argument.

I also don't know why you think the bolded part would ever be a "conservative option."  Libertarian, maybe, but definitely not conservative.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 29, 2022)

I think this Row V Wade is more personal to most of us


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> I can respect that.
> 
> Anyone else:
> 
> ...





Marauder06 said:


> A famous quote attributed to various American authors and politicians, and frequently repeated by the American Left, goes something along the lines of "the true measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members."  You don't have to be religious to concur with such a sentiment.  If you believe the preceding quote, it is hard to see how any member of our society is weaker than an unborn child.  If you believe life begins when a fetus is viable outside of the womb, which is a scientifically-based assessment vs. a religious one ("life begins at conception"), then aborting said child is killing it.
> 
> So if you believe that extra-judicial killing of people is wrong because it interferes with the effective functioning of society, then killing children, i.e. the weakest members of our society, via abortion, is morally wrong.  That is a totally values-based, secular argument.
> 
> I also don't know why you think the bolded part would ever be a "conservative option."  Libertarian, maybe, but definitely not conservative.



I think life begins at viability. I have a hard time imagining that it does before then, because you know, it isn’t viable.

I personally would be fine with completely and totally outlawing choice non medically necessary abortion after viability.

ETA: this is almost 6 months pregnant. I think it is irresponsible to not decide before then.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2022)

Here is your 20k bill for delivery….


----------



## 757 (Jun 29, 2022)

*Contraception.*

Echoing some points @Cookie_ made about contraceptives and education, recently I got briefly stuck on the UPR team at my office and one of the countries I had the "pleasure" of researching was Ghana. Anyway, one quote I found while researching was,

"This study examined the rate and sociodemographic factors associated with induced abortion among women in Ghana, based on data from the 2007 and 2017 Maternal Health Surveys. The overall prevalence of abortion was found to have decreased significantly from 31.9% in 2007 to 7.5% in 2017, resulting in a 24.4% decline over the ten years. This improvement could be attributed to the increasing use of contraceptives in Ghana, as the rising use of contraceptives decreases the rate of abortion..."

*Viability Cons.*

I'm not sure how much I'll add to this convo going forward, other than I tend to agree with @Devildocs general opinion overall. That said, I really struggle with the logic of the "viability" argument, as I understand it at least.

Lets create a hypothetical example with a man named Joe as the key player. Joe lives in a lovely home in the Alaskan wilderness. In said home, Joe has everything he needs to survive. It's January 15th. On this particular day, a group of men break into Joe's house, remove him, and drop him off 200 miles away from anything and everyone in casual attire. 

In this scenario, Joe would almost certainly die due to exposure from the elements. He is not "viable" in those conditions.

For me, the cross application of the viability argument, in the case of abortion at least, causes the most problems because the underlying argument seems to deal with, essentially, location. If left to it's own devices, the fetus, especially after the first trimester, will continue to grow and eventually be born as a human child.

*Personal Perspective.*

Personally, I think human life begins at fertilization. Logically, once the thing has it's own unique DNA and becomes a ticking child-bomb, I just struggle with the idea of terminating that clump of cells, remembering that I am also a clump of cells.

Last thing...My wife gave birth to our daughter a little over a year ago. Even though the pregnancy was fairly easy all things considered, going through pregnancy is NOT an easy process. I understand that my argument has two obvious side effects:

1) Forcing mothers to go through 9 months of pregnancy and give birth/C-section and live with the physical/emotional side effects of having undergone a pregnancy,

and

2) Needing to provide for those kids after birth if their mothers don't want them.

The first one can somewhat be alleviated by sex ed and easy access to contraception (see Ghana) and issue two requires people willing to adopt and funding for adoption agencies/those who adopt. If you believe as I do, then I think it is incumbent on you to put your money where your mouth is, and support adoption agencies and/or adopt.

Hopping off my soapbox now.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 29, 2022)

757 said:


> *Viability Cons.*
> 
> I'm not sure how much I'll add to this convo going forward, other than I tend to agree with @Devildocs general opinion overall. That said, I really struggle with the logic of the "viability" argument, as I understand it at least.
> 
> ...



In such a scenario, would the people who caused Joe's death not have committed homicide?  I think that's the point a lot of pro-lifers are trying to make.


----------



## 757 (Jun 29, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> In such a scenario, would the people who caused Joe's death not have committed homicide?  I think that's the point a lot of pro-lifers are trying to make.


That is correct.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 29, 2022)

@757 "Joe" isn't immediately given all available medical care and put in a "climate controlled" bubble for his survival.  Now if you made the same scenario with Joe being dropped off in some downtown park of a major city, it's a good comparison.   

The youngest premature birth to survive was at 21 weeks, 1 day.    

Premature birth - Diagnosis and treatment - Mayo Clinic.


----------



## 757 (Jun 29, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> @757 "Joe" isn't immediately given all available medical care and put in a "climate controlled" bubble for his survival.  Now if you made the same scenario with Joe being dropped off in some downtown park of a major city, it's a good comparison.
> 
> The youngest premature birth to survive was at 21 weeks, 1 day.
> 
> Premature birth - Diagnosis and treatment - Mayo Clinic.


Fair point.

The premise I was trying to underline, forgive me if I didn't make it clear, was that if a fetus or "Joe" is allowed to stay in it's natural environment (home or womb) it is "viable." It is only when they are removed from that environment that they become non-viable.

Maybe a better hypothetical comparison would be Joe living in a house next to a 100 foot sheer cliff that goes in both directions for 100 miles. One night a support beam fails and his bed room becomes unstable, jettisoning him out of his house down the cliff, only to land on 20 feet of snow, temporarily surviving. (hopefully this example better exemplifies a premature birth as more of a freak thing instead of mal intent).

The argument that Pro-choice individuals tend to make is that the fetus cannot survive outside of its natural environment pre-20 weeks, which is medically accurate, as you cited. But even in that case, through the age of at least 2, without somebody providing food, water, and shelter a kid would most likely not be able to survive on its own.

So why is viability outside of ones natural environment a good or relevant litmus test regarding the termination of a living organism that will, eventually, be recognized as human and afforded all the rights and protections thereof? And, if it is a good test, where do we draw the line and why?

I am in part asking this because California is toying with the idea, depending on how you interpret it, of adding a law that could allow for babies that are born to be left on their own post birth with no consequences if they die. I haven't come to a conclusion on this law, because I haven't talked to a Pro-choice attorney and I like to have both sides of the story to try and eliminate blind spots and personal bias.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 29, 2022)

757 said:


> Fair point.
> 
> The premise I was trying to underline, forgive me if I didn't make it clear, was that if a fetus or "Joe" is allowed to stay in it's natural environment (home or womb) it is "viable." It is only when they are removed from that environment that they become non-viable.
> 
> ...



Can you specify where you saw that example in that law. The California law specifies viability.


----------



## 757 (Jun 29, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Can you specify where you saw that example in that law. The California law specifies viability.


So here is the logic as I understand it, again not perfectly. *bolding is my own*
27491.​"*It shall be the duty of the coroner to inquire into and determine the circumstances, manner, and cause of all violent, sudden, or unusual deaths; unattended deaths; deaths where the deceased has not been attended by either a physician or a registered nurse, who is a member of a hospice care interdisciplinary team, as defined by subdivision* (g) of Section 1746 of the Health and Safety Code in the 20 days before death; known or suspected homicide, suicide, or accidental poisoning; deaths known or suspected as resulting in whole or in part from or related to accident or injury either old or recent; deaths due to drowning, fire, hanging, gunshot, stabbing, cutting, exposure, starvation, acute alcoholism, drug addiction, strangulation, aspiration, or where the suspected cause of death is sudden infant death syndrome; death in whole or in part occasioned by criminal means; deaths associated with a known or alleged rape; deaths in prison or while under sentence; deaths known or suspected as due to contagious disease and constituting a public hazard; deaths from occupational diseases or occupational hazards; deaths of patients in state hospitals serving the mentally disordered and operated by the State Department of State Hospitals; deaths of patients in state hospitals serving the developmentally disabled and operated by the State Department of Developmental Services; *deaths under circumstances that afford a reasonable ground to suspect that the death was caused by the criminal act of another; and any deaths reported by physicians or other persons having knowledge of death for inquiry by coroner.* Inquiry pursuant to this section does not include those investigative functions usually performed by other law enforcement agencies."


ME: Alright, so one of the coroner's jobs is to determine cause and circumstances of death in the hospital. Got it.

103005.​"(a) The coroner shall, within three days after examination of the fetus, state on the certificate of fetal death the time of fetal death, the direct causes of the fetal death, the conditions, if any, that gave rise to these causes, and other medical and health section data as may be required on the certificate, and shall sign the certificate in attest to these facts. The coroner shall, within three days after examining the body, deliver the death certificate to the attending funeral director.

(b) *This section shall not be used to establish, bring, or support a criminal prosecution or civil cause of action seeking damages against any person, whether or not they were the person who was pregnant with the fetus.*_* person who is immune from liability under Section 123467*._ Through its courts and statutes and under its Constitution, California protects the right to reproductive privacy, and it is the intent of the Legislature to reaffirm these protections."


ME: Ok, so the coroner's report seems like it cannot be used as evidence in a civil or criminal case against anybody who is immune under section 123467...so what does that say?


123467.​"(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their *actions* or *omissions *with respect to their *pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero*.
(b) A person who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise be deprived of their rights, based solely on their actions to aid or assist a pregnant person in exercising                        their rights under this article with the pregnant person’s voluntary consent."


Me: so this is the part that catches most people's eye. A person cannot be prosecuted for not doing something or nothing. SO what if they just left the baby on a table for days, or in a closet or killed it outright post birth. It's the Coroner's job to determine what occurred, but his report cannot be used for civil or criminal cases.

Again, I'm not saying that I fully agree with this logic, just that it does seem odd, at the very least, that the person responsible for determining criminality cannot use his own report as evidence. At the very LEAST the enforcement mechanism to protect newborns seems woefully inadequate imho.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 2, 2022)

757 said:


> and
> 
> 2) Needing to provide for those kids after birth if their mothers don't want them.
> 
> ...



Depending on the State, the "state" makes it very hard to adopt children. California is one example (but somehow easy to foster there, and they pay you) where it costs you a lot to adopt a ward of the state. That's why adoption agencies make tons of money both with domestic children and those from abroad. Why do people adopt foreign babies? Because it's cheaper.

We have a populace of people who can't have children, but are choosing artificial insemination or going so far as to have their mother's be surrogates. I understand at one point most states made it illegal for gays or lesbians to adopt...but that is no longer the case. Yet guy people aren't adopting. I'm seeing more and more lesbians that I know go to spend banks because they want the "experience", even though legitimately that is evolutions way of removing them from the gene pool on a best fit basis. (You can agree or disagree) But we'd have a lot less wards of the state if these people who literally can't have children (one by choice/programming of not liking men and the other by not liking women) chose to adopt.

That gets to abortion, most are clearly for convenience. I'm not saying it's not a difficult choice, but if you knew you were pregnant say by 8 weeks, but you pull the rip cord at 20 weeks, well you're a gaping asshole and definitely going to hell.




Rape and incest account for hardly any abortions. So why are they now a focus?

So the overwhelming majority of abortions aren't for health of the mother, rape, or incest. The data is out there, so this whole right to choose thing is funny. 

Contraception is heavily encouraged in our society. You can get birth control for free. You can get condoms for free. Hell you can even get plan B for free. The rest of this shit is excuses for people who should be responsible. But one thing the Army taught me. Most adults are not responsible people.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 2, 2022)

I am for abortion up until the baby is considered alive/live then my view shifts.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 3, 2022)

Something to broaden and lighten the conversation.


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2022)

Marine0311 said:


> I am for abortion up until the baby is considered alive/live then my view shifts.


The issue with that is that the moment the first cell divides it is alive, maybe not viable, but it is most certainly alive.


----------



## pardus (Jul 3, 2022)

Full disclosure, I haven't read the thread, I just skimmed the last page.
As a 17 year old during basic training, our padre, who happened to be Catholic, kindly made us watch a film of an abortion being performed, I guess it was taking via xray or ultrasound, as it showed the baby and exactly what happend. It was fucking disturbing and horrific to watch.
The baby was actively fighting against the instrument, which was basicly a set of garden shears built for purpose, I was shocked at the fight the baby put up, I just didnt think they were capable at that stage of life. The baby was killed when it was decapitated, then it's limbs were chopped off and the pieces were removed from the womb. I'll never unsee that shit.
Abortion is killing, plain and simple, I hate when people try to play that down, I've fucking seen it with my own eyes.
Now that said, I'm not against abortion per se. I think they are too many people in the world as it is, and I think a lot more need to die.
But seeing all these liberals loosing their minds because they don't have the right to kill a baby makes me laugh in a sick way, particularly the one's that are parents. I view this as I do with other things, this is as far as I'm concerned a state's rights issue, the feds have no mandate to decide this either way, if you live in a blue state, you'll be able to kill as many babies as you want, so relax and enjoy that right.
There are medical, social, economic etc... reasons to have an abortion, and I'm cool with that, I'd even take someone to have one performed, but stop the lies and bullshit surrounding it.


----------



## Chopstick (Jul 3, 2022)

@pardus  many, many years ago when I was a newly minted CMA, I was assigned to assist at a "selective reduction" at the University hospital where I was working.  Basically the patient had an IVF with implantation of 5 embryos.  In those days, it was rare for more than 2 embryos to to survive.  This particular patient had 5 which were "viable" (the doctor's terminology) and it was coming to a point in the pregnancy that if all 5 continued they would all most likely not survive.  So during the preliminary US survey to this selective reduction, the parents and doctors were discussing which 2 to "keep" and which to not "keep".  I could see that they all had had beating hearts. I could not believe the conversation between the doctor and parents.  How do you "pick" which 3 to "selectively reduce"?  I excused myself and told my boss that there was no way I was staying for this procedure.  I was 19 years old at the time and this had such a huge impact on me .  I really didn't "get it" until I saw that with my own eyes.  That was the day that I decided I  personally was against abortion.  I don't propose to make that decision for anyone else but as for me, I would not work at that clinic again.  I transferred to oncology later that day.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 3, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Controversial/uncontroversial opinion.
> 
> 
> This is all Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fault.


I've seen the same sentiment in a couple of other places, but I don't quite get it.  Wasn't the decision 6-3?  So if Justice Ginsburg had retired and Democrat president appointed a liberal justice, wouldn't the vote have been 5-4?  Is that still not enough to overturn Roe v. Wade?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 3, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> I've seen the same sentiment in a couple of other places, but I don't quite get it.  Wasn't the decision 6-3?  So if Justice Ginsburg had retired and Democrat president appointed a liberal justice, wouldn't the vote have been 5-4?  Is that still not enough to overturn Roe v. Wade?



If she would have retired, a liberal justice would have replaced her. Robert’s likely would have leaned with the liberal side, as he did not find the legal argument compelling. Instead 3 Trump appointees and Thomas and Alito voted to overturn. Should have been 1 Trump appointee.

Remember Barrett was confirmed a week before the election despite what we were told by Mitch and company relating to Gorsuch.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 3, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> If she would have retired, a liberal justice would have replaced her. Robert’s likely would have leaned with the liberal side, as he did not find the legal argument compelling. Instead 3 Trump appointees and Thomas and Alito voted to overturn. Should have been 1 Trump appointee.
> 
> Remember Barrett was confirmed a week before the election despite what we were told by Mitch and company relating to Gorsuch.



Nothing was stopping Roberts from siding with the Liberal justices in this. He has often done so in the past and written dissents. He found the arguments compelling enough to make it be a big majority rather than narrow. So I highly doubt he would have sided with the liberal side of the court.

Given the trash of a confirmation process that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett had to go through due to the Democrats being evil and vile scum. It is just desserts that this ruling came down. Kentaji Brown got an easy pass by comparison.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2022)

I think someone mentioned this on the board, so if I'm covering "old" ground, I apologize.

For the record, I am pro-choice. I think there are limits, or should be, but my threshold for "full stop" is probably less than many liberals and more than most conservatives, but whatever.

_Roe_ was a bad argument. Pinning the abortion question on right to privacy was a weak argument and one doomed to fail. There were better cases out which offered a better chance for a permanent solution. One of the critics of _Roe_ was no less than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She took the above a step further and thought _Roe_ should have been rejected and the decision returned to the states. That would allow states to sort out that question, resulting in lawsuits that would inevitably make it to SCOTUS, so the ruling could be put to bed once-and-for-all.

RBG's opinion on the matter predates her appointment to the Supreme Court. As a bit of trivia, I chuckled upon realizing she was confirmed 96-3 with about 40 Republicans voting Yea. In that mix were some pretty stalwart conservatives. How the turn tables...

Anyway, something I think the Left has forgotten is Democrats had I think two 2-year windows where they controlled the White House, Senate, and House; something close to that. Anyway, whether they took _Roe_ for granted, forgot about it, were preoccupied with other political efforts (banning guns and the ACA), they failed to secure a woman's right to choose. For over 40 years, abortion in the US has hung by a thread and some of those screaming the loudest were in a position to make that thread a rope...but didn't.

If you're pro-choice, you could at least recognize that there are a lot of bad actors who got us here today, not just Trump and 3 SCOTUS picks. 

One could say SCOTUS terminated something that wasn't viable in the real world.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 4, 2022)

AWP said:


> Anyway, something I think the Left has forgotten is Democrats had I think two 2-year windows where they controlled the White House, Senate, and House; something close to that. Anyway, whether they took _Roe_ for granted, forgot about it, were preoccupied with other political efforts (banning guns and the ACA), they failed to secure a woman's right to choose. For over 40 years, abortion in the US has hung by a thread and some of those screaming the loudest were in a position to make that thread a rope...but didn't.



I brought it up. It's something leftists have been trying to get since Roe was passed, but the establishment party would never go for it.

The DNC doesn't really like to do anything hard or to controversial(as deemed by the population as a whole); they aren't fighters.  They like to say "we can't do it because those rascally Republicans or sneaky Joe Manchin won't let it happen, so donate to us so we can try and elect more candidates we like".  Case in point, trying to force Pelosi to hold a Medicare for all vote back in 2020.  They refused to do it because it wouldn't have votes to pass.  That was beside the point though; the purpose was to force people to put their money where there mouths were. It's real easy to say you support something, but a lot harder when you actually have to do it and can't use the other side as a bogeyman.

Compare that to how the GOP, specifically during the Tea Party era, operates.  Love it or hate it, they don't give a flying about playing politics. Hell, they self cannibalize their own for stepping out of line to much from the party, background be damned (perfect example is Dan Crenshaw being called a RINO).

Could you imagine the Dems ever doing something like that to Sinema or Manchin? Imagine AOC and the others in the "squad" fucking with Pelosi as much as some tea party members did to force Boehner to drop bills they didn't like? Some senator getting out there like Cruz to read Green Eggs and Ham during a 21 hour filibuster?

The dems don't do anything because they're weak and reactive.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 4, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I brought it up. It's something leftists have been trying to get since Roe was passed, but the establishment party would never go for it.
> 
> The DNC doesn't really like to do anything hard or to controversial(as deemed by the population as a whole); they aren't fighters.  They like to say "we can't do it because those rascally Republicans or sneaky Joe Manchin won't let it happen, so donate to us so we can try and elect more candidates we like".  Case in point, trying to force Pelosi to hold a Medicare for all vote back in 2020.  They refused to do it because it wouldn't have votes to pass.  That was beside the point though; the purpose was to force people to put their money where there mouths were. It's real easy to say you support something, but a lot harder when you actually have to do it and can't use the other side as a bogeyman.
> 
> ...



You mean like AOC and the squad are trying to attack Sinema and Manchin right now and have been for over a year? Child please. Sinema and Manchin are clearly people with real huevos that represent their people. I didn't vote for Sinema but she has represented me very well, unlike that slimebag trash heap Mark Kelly. 

Maybe get a better party platform than "we like killing babies".


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 4, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> You mean like AOC and the squad are trying to attack Sinema and Manchin right now and have been for over a year? Child please. Sinema and Manchin *the type of dems I can somewhat support.* I didn't vote for Sinema but she has represented me very well, unlike that slimebag trash heap Mark Kelly.



Fixed that for you.

If you think the weak-ass pushback Sinema and Manchin have gotten is at all comparable to what the GOP does to maintain party order, you've switched places with Mark Kelly and must be posting from the ISS.

Was McCain a good representative for the state, or was he a RINO because he sometimes worked with the Dems? 



ThunderHorse said:


> Maybe get a better party platform than "we like killing babies".



That's about as reductive as saying get a party platform other than "we're afraid of gay people, but luckily we've got these guns".

That's childish and something I'd expect more from the rabbit.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I brought it up. It's something leftists have been trying to get since Roe was passed, but the establishment party would never go for it.



Ah, thank you. I read so much it is hard to remember who said what.


Cookie_ said:


> Could you imagine the Dems ever doing something like that to Sinema or Manchin?



They went after them pretty hard over the BBB nonsense. Compared to the GOP? I don't know enough to compare, but the Dems were shitting on those two quite a bit.

Side note: it is rather fucked up that if you try to compromise in US politics today you get the RINO/ DINO tag. Disgusting.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 4, 2022)

AWP said:


> Ah, thank you. I read so much it is hard to remember who said what.
> 
> 
> They went after them pretty hard over the BBB nonsense. Compared to the GOP? I don't know enough to compare, but the Dems were shitting on those two quite a bit.
> ...


Agree.  Politics in the US has become a race to extremes.  I didn't come up with this expression but I've experienced it and used it often:  "if you try to be middle-of-the-road, you get run over by both sides."   I've experienced that in my work with The Havok Journal, in my interactions here on the board, and in other aspects of my life.  Over time, moderates get tired of getting run over and begin to gravitate towards the side that treats them less-shittily.  I don't think that's an effective recipe for long-term success as a nation.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2022)

We need a better Love emoji, @ShadowSpear. Is a simple Heart too much to ask for? Please?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 4, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> Fixed that for you.
> 
> If you think the weak-ass pushback Sinema and Manchin have gotten is at all comparable to what the GOP does to maintain party order, you've switched places with Mark Kelly and must be posting from the ISS.
> 
> ...



Full stop. Sinema and Manchin represent the people of their state. Not you, and clearly not your specific value set. This isn't even about if Sinema is a Democrat. I, as a resident of Arizona who voted against her, actually likes how she has represented ME. Mark Kelly is a piece of shit that needs to be shot into orbit. 

Maybe this is idealistic, but when she was in the House she was a partisan hack. But as a Senator, she figured out she had represent the people of her state beyond just the people who voted for her. So, that actually makes her a good Senator. Maybe not for you or your various positions.

But for most Arizonans we feel very good about her. She is much like McCain and people go after her.  You clearly wouldn't know because you don't live here, but she was accosted in the effing bathroom at ASU.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 4, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> If she would have retired, a liberal justice would have replaced her. Robert’s likely would have leaned with the liberal side, as he did not find the legal argument compelling. Instead 3 Trump appointees and Thomas and Alito voted to overturn. Should have been 1 Trump appointee.
> 
> Remember Barrett was confirmed a week before the election despite what we were told by Mitch and company relating to Gorsuch.


I read up a bit more on the subject, and the below content is in regard to the arguments made in this article, not the above post (which is quoted so people can follow the discussion that led to it).

The problem I have with the "Ginsberg's fault" argument is that it makes an awful lot  of assumptions.  First we assume that President Obama could have gotten a replacement for her confirmed without it getting cockblocked like Merrick Garland's did.  OK, so she retires at the wrong time, and instead of one vacancy when President Trump comes to power, he now gets two, and the vote ends up the same.

We also assume that Justice Ginsberg, who is on the record for not finding the Roe case compelling, would dissent (although IMO she would have done so).

So even with a liberal replacement to Justice Ginsberg, the court would have still been 5-4 conservative(ish).  We assume that the Democrats would have appointed someone willing to support a far-left agenda (I think that's a good assumption since I only recall one Republican appointee consistently voting outside party lines). 

Additionally, and more importantly, AFAIK Justice Ginsberg's decision to not retire had zero impact on the number of other justices appointed by President Trump.  If she would have retired, there would have only been one fewer Trump appointee, with still a 5-4 vote. 

Despite his reputation as a "swing voter," I see no indications that Justice Roberts would have changed his vote if it would have made the difference between upholding Roe or striking it down. We can assume that he would have, but I don't see any evidence to support that would have been the case. In fact, the evidence I found indicates the opposite, when it comes to high-impact, long-term decisions like Roe.

I'm not a Justice Ginsberg fanboy. In fact, I think the "Notorious RBG" cult of personality that grew up around her is silly, if not outright dangerous. But I don't think that Roe being overturned because she didn't retire is her fault. She's a convenient target, but without an enormous amount of assumptions and mental gymnastics, I don't think we can lay the Dobbs decision at her feet. If we want to cast "blame," we can probably start with the Republicans for refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Garland (which would have still made the vote 5-4 if Ginsberg hadn't retired), and more importantly for the Democrats' actions and choices during President Obama's administration and the election that the country decided it had no choice but... Trump.

I also think it took courage for Justice Ginsberg to maintain her position on the bench despite the pressure she was under to resign.  Is the on the bench to serve the American people (which she was fully capable of continuing to do when she was being asked to resign), or is she there to support partisan political interests and a far-left agenda?  Good on her for putting her job above party.  There is very little of that, on either side of the major parties, today.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 4, 2022)

AWP said:


> We need a better Love emoji, @ShadowSpear. Is a simple Heart too much to ask for? Please?


If staff elections were still a thing I'd have that as a one-issue platform ;)

...I'm all about making empty political promises on things I can't deliver.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 4, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> But for most Arizonans we feel very good about her. She is much like McCain and people go after her. You clearly wouldn't know because you don't live here, but she was accosted in the effing bathroom at ASU.


I joined the army out of Arizona in 09.  Kept it as my home of record until 2018 when I left active duty. Voted in every election I was eligible; still have family there and follow the politics.

I remember the absolute dogshit McCain got after 08, and how much worse it got with party hardliners in the state and nationally starting around 10.  Sinema doesn't get anywhere close to the shit that he did. Not saying she deserves to be harassed or should be targeted more (nobody should) but my comparison goes back to the original point; GOP voters and party members go harder than Dems.



Marauder06 said:


> Despite his reputation as a "swing voter," I see no indications that Justice Roberts would have changed his vote if it would have made the difference between upholding Roe or striking it down. We can assume that he would have, but I don't see any evidence to support that would have been the case. In fact, the evidence I found indicates the opposite, when it comes to high-impact, long-term decisions like Roe.



The thinking is that Roberts tends to be very narrow in his ruling in close cases like this.  If it was a 4-4 split between the conservative and liberals, it's thought that Roberts wouldn't fully overturn Roe, but would readdress the viability aspect of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 4, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> I read up a bit more on the subject, and the below content is in regard to the arguments made in this article, not the above post (which is quoted so people can follow the discussion that led to it).
> 
> The problem I have with the "Ginsberg's fault" argument is that it makes an awful lot  of assumptions.  First we assume that President Obama could have gotten a replacement for her confirmed without it getting cockblocked like Merrick Garland's did.  OK, so she retires at the wrong time, and instead of one vacancy when President Trump comes to power, he now gets two, and the vote ends up the same.
> 
> ...



I’m just gonna put a due out on this post and get back to it some day. 

I’m glad that today you can call her patriotic, and working for the American people. There were many on here not long ago calling her everything short of Satan. Those posts are gone, so it’ll slide.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 4, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> I’m just gonna put a due out on this post and get back to it some day.
> 
> I’m glad that today you can call her patriotic, and working for the American people. T*here were many on here not long ago calling her everything short of Satan. Those posts are gone, so it’ll slide.*


Well, OK, but I'm 100% certain that none of those posts were mine, so I don't understand how it's germane to the current discussion.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 4, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, OK, but I'm 100% certain that none of those posts were mine, so I don't understand how it's germane to the current discussion.



It has nothing to do with the discussion between you and me. You aren’t the only one on the board.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 4, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> It has nothing to do with the discussion between you and me. You aren’t the only one on the board.


Cool.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 5, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> I’m just gonna put a due out on this post and get back to it some day.
> 
> I’m glad that today you can call her patriotic, and working for the American people. There were many on here not long ago calling her everything short of Satan. Those posts are gone, so it’ll slide.


I'll fess up. Years before her death, I made a D&D reference to Ginsburg being a lich, with +10 creature token generation, and an added command bonus over social justicar warrior tokens. It was pretty funny at the time.



TLDR20 said:


> It has nothing to do with the discussion between you and me. You aren’t the only one on the board.


Now that I've stated my evil doings. You wanna enlighten us as to why you tried doxing someone here?


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 7, 2022)

You know, this thread has covered a *lot* of ground. But when I came to check the board today, I'll be honest- I was so, so disappointed. 

Are we actually *defending* politicians in this thread now? Because that, my friends, is a bridge too far. This thread was already an ab... terminated in the womb 1 day before the due date after the mother decided she was "totally over" being pregnant. Or a clump of cells. Or whatever we are arguing about now. 

Kidding! Except about the politicians, they're all trash.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 7, 2022)

Imagine the old day's. Long before now, this would have been tossed in the trash and set on fire.  Any offending cunts, would have been banished from the Tribe.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 7, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> You know, this thread has covered a *lot* of ground. But when I came to check the board today, I'll be honest- I was so, so disappointed.
> 
> Are we actually *defending* politicians in this thread now? Because that, my friends, is a bridge too far. This thread was already an ab... terminated in the womb 1 day before the due date after the mother decided she was "totally over" being pregnant. Or a clump of cells. Or whatever we are arguing about now.
> 
> Kidding! Except about the politicians, they're all trash.



I'll help!!


----------



## Gunz (Jul 18, 2022)

Southwest flight attendant awarded $5M after firing over abortion stance


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 18, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Southwest flight attendant awarded $5M after firing over abortion stance


Interesting.  I would have liked the article to have linked to some of her posts.  This seems like an extraordinary abuse of power by both the union and the airline.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 18, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Southwest flight attendant awarded $5M after firing over abortion stance




Sounds more like she was a victim of retaliation.  Which is why she was awarded $5M than her specific political stance.  Just how I read the article tbh.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 26, 2022)

I have an interesting logical experiment I have to lay out. I hope you'll join me. 

I have completely evolved on this subject; it has nothing to do with religion. It's a moral dilemma that I could not solve alone, which informed my new position. 

My new position is unapologetically and proudly pro-life. Without exception. 

ROE

My personal opinion is not how I would legislate in the hypothetical that I am making laws; they're quite different. But I am not talking about making laws for a hypothetical population. I am talking about the moral proposition of abortion and its standing. If I were a politician, I would consider "index cases" like rape and incest, or severe genetic affliction. I would explore legislating some "X-week" limit based on liability or whatever, supporting a common sense approach to legislating for the most people under my charge, even if I disagreed with it. *That is NOT what I want to explore*. I am not a politician. I am not talking about the law, the Constitution, states' rights, etc. I am looking to explore a non-religious reason why pro-choice is flawed. @TLDR20  leveled this charge a long time ago, and I want to say thank you for helping me get to where I am today. That's not a joke. 
I want to explore a simple set of facts I think are immutable but then apply them to the abortion issue; I believe it to be relevant.
I *think* my original 2 presuppositions are correct. 
I could be wrong; I am willing to accept that. 
There is at least *1* scenario below that fouls my position. I will say; I already have an answer. If someone brings it up, tight. But you do the work. 
Here we go. I am going to make 2 statements. This is what you need to disprove before we talk about legislation, index cases, politics, etc. 

Terminating a life without a serious threat (or actual harm)  to another life should never happen. 
*All* things can only exist in 3 possible states- *alive, dead, or inanimate*. E.G.-
*Alive things* are things that contain and exhibit the potential for life. These things can not be dead; they can not be inanimate. Dead things, and inanimate things, can not become alive. This is evidenced by how no dead things can become alive; the same for inanimate. 
*Dead things* are things that were have been alive, but now they are not. They had the potential for life or lived but then couldn't maintain that state. The wood in your house is dead. It no longer lives; it once did. You could argue that dead and inanimate are the same; I am willing to hear that argument in this context. But dead or inanimate, they are not alive. 
I*nanimate things* are neither alive nor dead, they're inanimate. Steel is inanimate. Concrete is inanimate. Inanimate things are not alive unless you want to agree with the above (2). Arguing the molecular "aliveness" of inanimate things do not make them "not inanimate,"; and no matter how you prove that "inanimate things may have once been alive", it still does not answer question one. 

So, abortion is the murder of life, without serious threat to another. Therefore, it is morally wrong and should not happen. 

Discuss.


----------



## JedisonsDad (Oct 27, 2022)

Interesting take. 

Personally, I am pro-choice. I would never consider that option, but I do realize there are certain circumstances for some people. With my opinion on government, I don’t believe they are the best authority on telling people what to do with their bodies, and less regulation is always better.

Do I consider it a valid birth control option? Hell no, and I judge people that do.

To go to your argument angle. Skin cells are living organisms with the potential for life, that exhibit and carry human DNA. I will kill those all day. Same for semen, they are living with the potential for life. Humans are just a cluster of smaller living cells.

I believe that we need to draw the line somewhere. First term seems appropriate to me. I understand that you don’t know the instant you’re pregnant, and you need time to find out.

I know it’s a wild slippery slope, but if you make it a light switch of either full yes or full no, you open the door to either very-late term abortion (8 months) or vasectomies Al being illegal because you’re preventing the potential for life.

I hope I articulated that in a clear way.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 27, 2022)

JedisonsDad said:


> Interesting take.
> 
> Personally, I am pro-choice. I would never consider that option, but I do realize there are certain circumstances for some people. With my opinion on government, I don’t believe they are the best authority on telling people what to do with their bodies, and less regulation is always better.
> 
> ...



The counter to this is, these things are YOUR DNA.  Fetal cells from the get-go are not the mother's DNA. But I get your point.


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 27, 2022)

@amlove21

Your first statement


> Terminating a life without a serious threat (or actual harm) to another life should never happen.



Reminded me of the Buddhist concept of Ahisma, which is the First of Five Precepts.

It's a prohibition on killing all living (sentient, we'll come back to this) things, both human and animal. It's not quite like a commandment, but it does affect someone's karma for rebirth.

The reason I specifically bring this up is because I've seen people make the point you have and the conversation on other social sites too often becomes "hurr durr why aren't you a pacifist vegan then if you think all killing is bad?"
That's a real shit counter argument.

The reason I like the concept of Ahisma is because though it considers all killing is bad, it acknowledges that all killing is not equal. The karmic hit for killing a spider is lesser than a cow, which is lesser than an "average" person, which is lesser than a "holy or positive Karma" person (for this discussion, lets assume fetuses have positive karma).

I don't think anyone (if they're being intellectually honest) would disagree with your assessment of what makes an alive thing. They may, as @JedisonsDad has pointed out, not view an embryo as "sentient". I fall in this camp.

I don't see how we really reconcile the non-sentient viewpoint with the life begins at conception viewpoint (full disclosure, conception is the Buddhist viewpoint).


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 27, 2022)

JedisonsDad said:


> Interesting take.
> 
> Personally, I am pro-choice. I would never consider that option, but I do realize there are certain circumstances for some people. With my opinion on government, I don’t believe they are the best authority on telling people what to do with their bodies, and less regulation is always better.
> 
> ...


Thanks for replying and yes you did articulate it clearly. 

Here is where we disagree- you, a sentient being, are not choosing to kill your skin cells. You may choose to kill your semen by excreting it; for the purpose of this conversation, I will say that in my own framework, "don't do that, it's wrong". Ideological consistency in this thought experiment just makes it cleaner. 

As for the rest of your post, you're verging into territory I specifically addressed above. The way I feel about this moral question doesn't really apply to the legislation of the topic. 

To make it clear- let's say I was campaigning, and someone asked me what I would do in office. I would say, "Abortion is morally unacceptable to me. It's taking a human life, period. However, and although I am vehemently morally opposed to it, I would not legislate my personal beliefs on my constituents." From there we would have to talk about "when is acceptable, and under what circumstances". 

Since that's a different conversation, that's where I will stop.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 27, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> @amlove21
> 
> Your first statement
> 
> ...


Love the explanation and reasoning; I don't feel the delineation of "sentient" is appropriate, unless we have a clear line on when the embryo crosses the line to sentient, and we can apply a time limit to that. Sentient or not, you're ending an innocent life, and since I called my shot, that's the line I am drawing. 

Bill Burr had a great joke on this that highlights a pretty big hole in the old, "humans are just bags of cells" argument. 

_“It’s not a baby yet, that’s what they say,” Burr says. “Which may or may not be true, I don’t know, I’m not a doctor. But I’ll tell you, my gut tells me, that doesn’t make sense.” 

“’It’s not a baby yet’ … that would be like if I was making a cake and I poured some batter in a pan, and I put it in the oven, and then five minutes later you came by and you grabbed the pan and you threw it across the floor, and I went ‘What the f***? You just ruined my birthday cake!’ and then you were like, ‘Well, that wasn’t a cake yet.’”


He continued, “It’s like, ‘Well, it would have been if you didn’t do what you just did, there would have been a cake in 50 minutes.’ Something happened to that cake, you cake-murdering son of a b****.”  _


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 27, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Love the explanation and reasoning; I don't feel the delineation of "sentient" is appropriate, unless we have a clear line on when the embryo crosses the line to sentient, and we can apply a time limit to that. Sentient or not, you're ending an innocent life, and since I called my shot, that's the line I am drawing.
> 
> Bill Burr had a great joke on this that highlights a pretty big hole in the old, "humans are just bags of cells" argument.
> 
> ...



Yea, lines get real blurry on what "sentient" is based on our understanding of it. 
For example, most people probably don't think of spiders as sentient, but what if we learned They show signs of having REM sleep and dreams?

Does that move them higher up on the ladder of what we consider sentience? If we learned a zygote had measurable sentience, would pro-choice people become pro-life? It's an interesting idea.

The Bill Burr bit is a good one. I don't think enough people on the pro-choice side actually give thought to the example he uses, because it's easier to say "it's not human".
It's much harder to say "I think you're killing a baby, but I'm still pro choice because your body (autonomy) comes first".


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 27, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> It's much harder to say "I think you're killing a baby, but I'm still pro choice because your body (autonomy) comes first".


Exactly, and well put. That question was the beginning for the end for me, actually. 

Again, this has nothing to do with legislation, just a philosophical exploration of the topic.


----------



## JedisonsDad (Oct 27, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Love the explanation and reasoning; I don't feel the delineation of "sentient" is appropriate, unless we have a clear line on when the embryo crosses the line to sentient, and we can apply a time limit to that. Sentient or not, you're ending an innocent life, and since I called my shot, that's the line I am drawing.
> 
> Bill Burr had a great joke on this that highlights a pretty big hole in the old, "humans are just bags of cells" argument.
> 
> ...


I swear I’m not trying to be contrarian or argue semantics, but to me, a pan of batter is not a cake. A pan of batter is a pan of batter. It does not become that cake until it’s out the oven, cooled, and frosted. 

Similar to my opinion.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 27, 2022)

JedisonsDad said:


> I swear I’m not trying to be contrarian or argue semantics, but to me, a pan of batter is not a cake. A pan of batter is a pan of batter. It does not become that cake until it’s out the oven, cooled, and frosted.
> 
> Similar to my opinion.


Would you agree then, that a fertilized embryo will in fact turn into a sentient being? That, left alone, those "collection of cells" will become a human, and further- that even in gestation, that thing is alive?

(also, minus one interwebs point for not just laughing at a funny joke)


----------



## JedisonsDad (Oct 27, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Would you agree then, that a fertilized embryo will in fact turn into a sentient being? That, left alone, those "collection of cells" will become a human, and further- that even in gestation, that thing is alive?
> 
> (also, minus one interwebs point for not just laughing at a funny joke)


I will agree that eventually it will turn into a sentient being. And I will agree that even during gestation it is alive.

However, I will also offer the counter argument that much like a tumor, it is at a time, a non-sentient collection of cells, with unique DNA, that is unable to sustain itself or grow without some form of parasitic relationship.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 27, 2022)

JedisonsDad said:


> I will agree that eventually it will turn into a sentient being. And I will agree that even during gestation it is alive.
> 
> However, I will also offer the counter argument that much like a tumor, it is at a time, a non-sentient collection of cells, with unique DNA, that is unable to sustain itself or grow without some form of parasitic relationship.


Agree with your first part, and hard disagree with the second. That may make the argument more palatable to someone that doesn’t just want to say, “I agree I’m terminating the life of a child”, but your comparison is in no way the same. 

No animosity, just a really bad argument, IMO.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 27, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Agree with your first part, and hard disagree with the second. That may make the argument more palatable to someone that doesn’t just want to say, “I agree I’m terminating the life of a child”, but your comparison is in no way the same.
> 
> No animosity, just a really bad argument, IMO.



As a thought experiment, what if I take stem cells from say a foreskin, and I turn them into Nuerons, or cardiac cells, and they make a heart over a 3-D printed scaffold, that beats, is it alive? The nuerons conduct electrical signals, the cardiac cells have automaticity. Are they alive?


I’ll say it though, my thought is basically, “I agree with terminating the life of a fetus, that is under the age of xxxx(tbd by the current science of the day)”


----------



## JedisonsDad (Oct 27, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Agree with your first part, and hard disagree with the second. That may make the argument more palatable to someone that doesn’t just want to say, “I agree I’m terminating the life of a child”, but your comparison is in no way the same.
> 
> No animosity, just a really bad argument, IMO.


I’ll take that. Maybe it’s that I’m not thinking of things in a black and white manner, and I tend not. 

I don’t know enough about this, but what is the national average gestation age that states begin to prosecute for manslaughter or whatever the charge they go with, when it comes to car wrecks or whatever where a pregnant woman is killed and the fetus is not viable?

I will still fall back to my overarching opinion that the government, especially on a federal level, should not be the ones to decide laws covering this subject. If states want to be more restrictive, let them. It’s more realistic to move from a state than it is to move from a country. And you’re more liking to have a meaningful vote on the smaller scale.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 27, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> Exactly, and well put. That question was the beginning for the end for me, actually.
> 
> Again, this has nothing to do with legislation, just a philosophical exploration of the topic.



I appreciate your differentiation of the philosophical from the legislative. I would say that I am significantly more legislatively pro choice than personally.

I also appreciate your responses. Though I disagree.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 27, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> As a thought experiment, what if I take stem cells from say a foreskin, and I turn them into Nuerons, or cardiac cells, and they make a heart over a 3-D printed scaffold, that beats, is it alive? The nuerons conduct electrical signals, the cardiac cells have automaticity. Are they alive?
> 
> 
> I’ll say it though, my thought is basically, “I agree with terminating the life of a fetus, that is under the age of xxxx(tbd by the current science of the day)”


I'll play your game! I would ask- 

Will it grow? Can it reproduce? Does it have the potential for further sustained life? I think those answers are "no." While the organic matter may be alive, I would put this in the inanimate category. The natural outgrowth of this would be, "I can make an android with AI that's sentient- is that alive?" 



JedisonsDad said:


> I’ll take that. Maybe it’s that I’m not thinking of things in a black and white manner, and I tend not.
> 
> *I don’t know enough about this, but what is the national average gestation age that states begin to prosecute for manslaughter or whatever the charge they go with, when it comes to car wrecks or whatever where a pregnant woman is killed and the fetus is not viable?*
> 
> I will still fall back to my overarching opinion that the government, especially on a federal level, should not be the ones to decide laws covering this subject. If states want to be more restrictive, let them. It’s more realistic to move from a state than it is to move from a country. And you’re more liking to have a meaningful vote on the smaller scale.


This is an exquisite set of facts to try and sift through. Again, I am not talking about legislation at all; you keep bringing it back there. My views on "what the government should be involved in" are clear- absolutely nothing. Secure the borders, and protect the sovereign citizens, that's what the government is there to do. 

To your bolded- what a fun concept to explore. We will give you double life in prison if you kill a pregnant woman (and by the way there are court cases of women being murdered in the first few weeks of pregnancy and the murderer gets double life), citing the death of the baby.

But at _the exact same period in gestation, you're allowed to kill that baby because you don't feel like having a baby and people insist it's just a cluster of cells. _


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 27, 2022)

My cousin's daughter was born 16 weeks early, in Colorado you can abort at any stage. So literally before your due date.

But if a fetus is viable at 5 months, you're most definitely committing murder at 9 months. Just saying.


----------

