U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[KennyAtom]

i'm going to be completely honest here.

banning abortion except in extreme cases of rape or when it'll kill the mother is a pretty good idea, you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a birth control because you couldn't keep your damn legs shut.

But of course, if you really want one, you can always go to a liberal state, it should be easy.

Also calm the fuck down, just because the laws will revert to the states doesn't mean everywhere will suddenly become a hellhole where gay people and trans people are executed on sight, and the moment you speak out against laws you will be sent to a government sponsored rehabilitation program designed to brainwash you like 1984. The decisions will just revert to the states, nothing to throw a fit about.

 

[Pachee]

Old. White. Men.

 

[Cortador]

i'm going to be completely honest here.

banning abortion except in extreme cases of rape or when it'll kill the mother is a pretty good idea, you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a birth control because you couldn't keep your damn legs shut.

But of course, if you really want one, you can always go to a liberal state, it should be easy.

Also calm the fuck down, just because the laws will revert to the states doesn't mean everywhere will suddenly become a hellhole where gay people and trans people are executed on sight, and the moment you speak out against laws you will be sent to a government sponsored rehabilitation program designed to brainwash you like 1984. The decisions will just revert to the states, nothing to throw a fit about.

Just like Dysney being punished for voicing their opinion against a new Anti-LGBT law being passed in Florida.

I'm sure whatever contract they had with the state of Florida wasn't ripped to shreds just because of a difference in opinions as a form of punishment.

 

[Lumstar]

Personally, I despise how much power women have over reproduction; in a lot of areas a woman can get an abortion without her husband's or partner's knowledge, let alone consent - what if he wanted a child? Shouldn't it be a decision made by the TWO of them, not just one forcing the decision on the other?

Additionally, a woman can force child support on the baby's father, even if he didn't know he had impregnated her - one-night stands, stolen sperm, female-on-male rape, pregnancy entrapment (she tampers with his condom without him knowing, lying about being on the pill, etc.). Yeah, that's real fair, especially since in a lot of areas the man has a limited time to prove why he shouldn't pay, else the payment will be forced upon him - when it SHOULD be the woman having a limited time to prove why he should pay, with him able to defend himself, else no payment will be forced on him.

As for whether abortion should be legal or not...yeah, it should be, but it shouldn't be solely up to the woman.

Being legal doesn't make it without accountability. The father might've considerably invested in the child's future. If the baby is aborted without proper content, what happens to its college fund?

 

[tabzer]

And per your logic, the Second Amendment isn't about technology that didn't exist at the time or isn't explicitly mentioned.

It isn't about that at all. That's your argument, lol.

 

[Foxi4]

It isn't about that at all. That's your argument, lol.

The second is, and always has been, about the explicit right to bear arms that are of the same or similar standard to those used by the state itself, as a pre-requisite (not requirement) for forming citizen militias. By the virtue of being militias, they must necessarily have equal fighting force, so as to function as a stop gap against both external threat and tyranny. The possibility of standing up against the state was always priced in, should the state turn against its citizens - we know this from the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers were always aware of technological progress - plenty of it was happening *when they were still alive*. The “muskets only” argument is, and always has been, a red herring - the provision is non-specific because any additional specificity would limit its scope.

 

[Lacius]

To be clearer, I am not disagreeing with your lack of satisfaction with the constitution or with how it is living up to its status as "a living document".

The premise is simple. The 14th amendment is about representation, the 2nd amendment is about guns, and SCOTUS lacks the ability to interpret the intention of the founding fathers on subjects that they weren't ever concerned. Bowing out probably would have been more progressive and less damaging , long term, if it was done in the first place. Now you all have to work even harder to rewire your system after decades of building on an unstable foundation. Kind of ironic as the 14th amendment is indirectly making you work even harder.

Do... Do you think the founding fathers wrote the Fourteenth Amendment?

Also, insert here my previous point about how the Supreme Court should, according to conservative logic, only consider the kinds of guns around during the time of the founding fathers when discussing the Second Amendment.

Personally, I despise how much power women have over reproduction; in a lot of areas a woman can get an abortion without her husband's or partner's knowledge, let alone consent - what if he wanted a child? Shouldn't it be a decision made by the TWO of them, not just one forcing the decision on the other?

No. Only one of them is actually using their body to grow a fetus. The father's wishes are wholly irrelevant to the mother's choices about her own body.

Additionally, a woman can force child support on the baby's father, even if he didn't know he had impregnated her - one-night stands, stolen sperm, female-on-male rape, pregnancy entrapment (she tampers with his condom without him knowing, lying about being on the pill, etc.). Yeah, that's real fair, especially since in a lot of areas the man has a limited time to prove why he shouldn't pay, else the payment will be forced upon him - when it SHOULD be the woman having a limited time to prove why he should pay, with him able to defend himself, else no payment will be forced on him.

If a child is going to be brought into this world, it needs to be supported. If a man is going to be involved in the creation of this child, there has to be some personal responsibility. The pro-choice argument isn't about saying people shouldn't have personal responsibility; it's about acknowledging that a person should have a right to bodily autonomy, and that supercedes pretty much any other consideration. It sets a dangerous legal precedent when the government can tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. A state that criminalizes abortion could just as reasonably mandate kidney donations, for example. Whether or not a man has a financial responsibility towards a child has nothing to do with his right to bodily autonomy, so he gets no say.

I'm not necessarily unopposed to a man being able to sign away his parental rights and responsibilities early in a pregnancy, so long as there's a reasonable enough amount of time for the woman to make the informed choice about whether or not to have an abortion, and as long as it can be demonstrated that the sole parent has the resources to raise the kid herself.

 

[Lacius]

i'm going to be completely honest here.

banning abortion except in extreme cases of rape or when it'll kill the mother is a pretty good idea, you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a birth control because you couldn't keep your damn legs shut.

Great, let's make a law where any man who receives a blowjob must be compelled to donate a kidney to a compatible patient if the need arises.

Also calm the fuck down, just because the laws will revert to the states doesn't mean everywhere will suddenly become a hellhole where gay people and trans people are executed on sight, and the moment you speak out against laws you will be sent to a government sponsored rehabilitation program designed to brainwash you like 1984. The decisions will just revert to the states, nothing to throw a fit about.

The fall of Roe means the legal precedent for things like gay marriage, gay sex, oral sex, interracial marriage, and more could be subject to state bans (and trigger laws for these things are already on the books in some states). Embracing the kind of right wing authoritarianism where the government controls your body has its consequences.

It isn't about that at all. That's your argument, lol.

Excuse me. My point wasn't meant to be that it was your logic, but it is the logic of most American conservatives. If Amendments can only be about the literal words in the text and the literal considerations during the time, then that becomes inconvenient for conservatives when we move to the Second Amendment. That's my point.

 

[tabzer]

Do... Do you think the founding fathers wrote the Fourteenth Amendment?

No, but the person I was responding to thought that it is the job of SCOTUS to make decisions based on the "intention of the founding fathers".

Excuse me. My point wasn't meant to be that it was your logic, but it is the logic of most American conservatives.

It has nothing to do with the points that I've made. I'm not an American conservative, and my points aren't exclusive to American conservatives. Foxi puts up an interesting case, but since you can't find the correlation between "weaponry" and arms, I doubt you are a capable in tracing the correlation between women's uteruses and 21 year old males within the 14th amendment.

 

[Lacius]

I doubt you are a capable in tracing the correlation between women's uteruses and 21 year old males within the 14th amendment.

Like I said, the 14th Amendment is pretty broad, and we know that's by design.

 

[tabzer]

Like I said, the 14th Amendment is pretty broad, and we know that's by design.

Yeah, it's called chicanery. Obviously they weren't trying to mention the slaves when "freeing the slaves". Apparently, you forgot that part of history even happened.

 

[RichardTheKing]

No. Only one of them is actually using their body to grow a fetus. The father's wishes are wholly irrelevant to the mother's choices about her own body.


If a child is going to be brought into this world, it needs to be supported. If a man is going to be involved in the creation of this child, there has to be some personal responsibility. The pro-choice argument isn't about saying people shouldn't have personal responsibility; it's about acknowledging that a person should have a right to bodily autonomy, and that supercedes pretty much any other consideration. It sets a dangerous legal precedent when the government can tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. A state that criminalizes abortion could just as reasonably mandate kidney donations, for example. Whether or not a man has a financial responsibility towards a child has nothing to do with his right to bodily autonomy, so he gets no say.

I'm not necessarily unopposed to a man being able to sign away his parental rights and responsibilities early in a pregnancy, so long as there's a reasonable enough amount of time for the woman to make the informed choice about whether or not to have an abortion, and as long as it can be demonstrated that the sole parent has the resources to raise the kid herself.

Firstly, the father's wishes should not be "wholly irrelevant", since he provided his half of the fetus's chromosomes, and his life will also be changed by the presence of his child; he should, by all rights, be able to have his own say in whether or not an abortion occurs - 50/50, not 0/100 (man/woman). Denying this is continuing to deny part of men's reproductive and parental rights.

Secondly, how does any of the latter two paragraphs counter my opinion that it shouldn't be up to the father to prove why he shouldn't pay within a limited time frame, else he's forced to pay? I've heard of too many men trapped into child support payments, when they had absolutely nothing to do with the child and ended up being crippled by said payments; the default ending should be no payment forced on the father, especially if he doesn't have a well-paying job.

After all, there's countless ways for women to trap men into being forced to pay child support - tampering with condoms, sperm theft or sperm donation, rape (which does happen, despite what feminism and most news outlets hate to admit - men can be raped by women, yet there's minimal awareness of this), one-night stands...you're basically saying that if a guy does become victimised in this way, he should still end up financially responsible for a child he probably didn't even know about, and almost certainly doesn't want anything to do with; that's a truly wonderful opinion, there, mate. --__--

 

[Lacius]

Obviously they weren't trying to mention the slaves when "freeing the slaves".

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and it uses the word "slavery."

Firstly, the father's wishes should not be "wholly irrelevant", since he provided his half of the fetus's chromosomes, and his life will also be changed by the presence of his child; he should, by all rights, be able to have his own say in whether or not an abortion occurs - 50/50, not 0/100 (man/woman). Denying this is continuing to deny part of men's reproductive and parental rights.

I don't care if a man provided 100% of the genetic material. It isn't his body, so he has no say regarding what happens with the pregnancy. Whether or not his "life will be changed" by the outcome of the pregnancy is also irrelevant. We don't have a legal freedom from "life-changing events."

Secondly, how does any of the latter two paragraphs counter my opinion that it shouldn't be up to the father to prove why he shouldn't pay within a limited time frame, else he's forced to pay? I've heard of too many men trapped into child support payments, when they had absolutely nothing to do with the child and ended up being crippled by said payments; the default ending should be no payment forced on the father, especially if he doesn't have a well-paying job.

If a child is going to be brought into this world, it needs to be supported. I suggest you reread those paragraphs for more information.

After all, there's countless ways for women to trap men into being forced to pay child support - tampering with condoms, sperm theft or sperm donation, rape (which does happen, despite what feminism and most news outlets hate to admit - men can be raped by women, yet there's minimal awareness of this), one-night stands...you're basically saying that if a guy does become victimised in this way, he should still end up financially responsible for a child he probably didn't even know about, and almost certainly doesn't want anything to do with; that's a truly wonderful opinion, there, mate. --__--

If a man can prove that his sperm was stolen, I don't think he should have to pay child support.

The issue of whether or not a man should have to pay child support is different from the issue of whether or not a woman should have a right to bodily autonomy. A woman should always have a right to bodily autonomy, regardless of the circumstances. If a child is brought into this world, then that child needs financial support. The man who contributed half the genetic material to that child should be on the hook for some of that support. That isn't a violation of his right to bodily autonomy. He is not free from the consequences of his actions.

 

[Drak0rex]

Amusing that after the Plandemic, the lefties are reeeing and screaming ''My body my choice'' again.

 

[Lacius]

Amusing that after the Plandemic, the lefties are reeeing and screaming ''My body my choice'' again.

I don't recall anyone arguing during the pandemic that anybody didn't have a right to bodily autonomy.

 

[Stone_Wings]

Amusing that after the Plandemic, the lefties are reeeing and screaming ''My body my choice'' again.

Isn't that what the righties have been crying about for the last 2 years? Funny how they only want medical freedom for themeselves. What a fucking hypocrite. You may as well start protesting "Her body! My choice!", since we all know that's what conservatives already believe anyway. That your women should be 100% sumbissive to you, obey your every command, and fulfil your every desire. You're all fucking pathetic and disgusting. This is has nothign to do with murdering babies and "satanism" (especially lmfao at the latter), and everything to do with conservative scum controlling their women as usual.

 

[Dark_Phoras]

@heraymo I was already preparing this comment and, as it pertains to what you wrote, I'll summon you in case it is of interest.

I perceive consciousness as the state of being, when the fetus starts to feel anything at all, starts to dream and becomes aware. For simplicity, we can say when it wakes up to life. Consciousness can develop as early as the 24th week, which is the end of the fifth month, but usually it manifests around the 30th week, which is beyond six and a half months. Personally, I'm for the right of a woman to choose to abort before the fetus reaches its state of consciousness, and I believe there should be limits to the right to choose the abortion after it, related to medical reasons (risk to life or of debilitating injury to the woman, deformity on the baby, new significant medical/psychiatric events in any of the parents), or if the sexual act or the insemination were forced upon the woman.

By curiosity, I went to check on a book. “Ethics in the Real World” is an accessible collection of thoughts by the philosopher Peter Singer, where he applies the ethical principles of philosophy to contemporary real world cases. And he has a brief chapter on abortion. Beyond other points, Singer states that the fallacy of the anti-abortion argument lies in the false equivalency between the scientific thesis that a fetus is a homo sapiens and the ethical thesis that the fetus has subsequently the same right to life than any other human. Belonging to the homo sapiens species isn’t enough to give an entity the right to live.

Singer argues that granting the right for a fetus to live on it being conscious or rational makes it invalid to kill plenty of other living beings, like cows, because cows have more conscious and rational capacity than a human fetus. However, the pro-life groups protesting against abortion seldom protest to save the animals and in favor of a vegan lifestyle.

It is plausible that we shouldn’t kill, against their will, self-conscious beings that wish to continue to live. However, why should the potential of a being to become self-conscious make it immoral to prevent their potential self-consciousness? We’re not bound to allow that any being with the potential to become self-conscious reaches that status of self-consciousness. When we have a conflict between the unknown interests of non-rational beings and the known interests of rational women, the women get the preference.

i'm going to be completely honest here.

banning abortion except in extreme cases of rape or when it'll kill the mother is a pretty good idea, you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a birth control because you couldn't keep your damn legs shut.

But of course, if you really want one, you can always go to a liberal state, it should be easy.

There's the issue that women who live in some abortion-banning states are still imprisoned if they travel to another state to perform the abortion. The location of the act is irrelevant for them.

 

[tabzer]

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and it uses the word "slavery."

That's right. That's my misunderstanding and I own that. It was about their status as citizens. Still chicanery, though. Still absent of a rebuttal.

 

[Lacius]

Still chicanery, though.

Could you be more specific about your claim?

 

[tabzer]

Could you be more specific about your claim?

That it has nothing to do with abortion? That it maintained that 21+ year old males where the primary demographic of representation?