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

[x65943]

Yes, but we both know that's not going to be the full extent of it. Abortion clinics were already one of the most common targets for bombings and/or shootings. Now that they'll be isolated to just ten states or so? Vanilla ISIS is already licking their chops.

In addition to a terrorist attack, there are two other things I can guarantee will happen within the next few months. A woman will die from either miscarriage or stillbirth, the "pro-life" crowd will laugh it off. And a prominent Republican will be caught sending his mistress or daughter to get an abortion from a legal state. Predicting these things is as easy as predicting that the Earth will keep spinning.

During a 2016 interview, Trump dodged answering a question about whether he had ever been involved with anyone who had an abortion:

Given [Trump’s] draconian comment [about] sending women back to back alleys, I had to ask: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion?
“Such an interesting question,” he said. “So what’s your next question?”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-pay-8-women/

I think from his answer there you can make your own conclusion

 

[Rena_to84]

Assisted suicide is already legal in a few states. Respect separation of church and state, you don't have the right to force your Christian Sharia law on everybody else.

The Demonrats congressmonsters of California are on their way to making it "legal" to kill a child if the mother so wants. They call it "postnatal abortion".
Listen, the powerful people in California are not the only ones in history who legalized human sacrifice, many pagan societies used to do it. That's precisely whre the regressive revolutionary lunatics want to lead us back to, if you haven't noticed yet.

 

[Xzi]

The Demonrats congressmonsters of California are on their way to making it "legal" to kill a child if the mother so wants. They call it "postnatal abortion".

Fearmongering nonsense. If you can't argue within the confines of reality, don't bother trying to argue at all.

 

[x65943]

Serious question tho when someone says something completely nonsensical/insane why even reply to them. If an entire life of being exposed to reality had no effect what will a comment section do for them

 

[Xzi]

Serious question tho when someone says something completely nonsensical/insane why even reply to them. If an entire life of being exposed to reality had no effect what will a comment section do for them

Avoids me the hassle of having to continue interacting with them, at least.

 

[Rena_to84]

Except you understand that the difference between a baby, a human being who is capable of existing outside of the womb fully, and a fetus, a undeveloped baby, is that a fetus, is not fully developed, and has a period of time, where it's considered okay to have an abortion. Why? Here let me put your ridiculous argument.
Your equating killing a child, with killing something that isn't even developed enough to live in the outside. That doesn't mean you can just have an abortion at all stages, it's always been generally considered safest around 12 weeks, which the women would obviously have noticed by this point.

By your assessment, male masturbation should be considered killing a child. They all have half the genetic information, and a mix of that male's background.

I'm a doctor, and I'm in awe that you don't know the difference between a regular human cell and a gamete, which contains only half of your DNA.
You people talk so much about "reason", but you don't seem to have a clue about what you're talking. Please, go study these matters before serving as a human toy for the barons of P1anned P4renthood (and its owners), ok?

 

[Ulieq]

Unborn and babys are just empty flesh sacks. An unfilled brain is not sentient.

 

[Hanafuda]

In the same way that pro-choice will advocate for access in red states, pro-life will advocate against access in blue states

However clearly there is no constitutional power for the federal government to legislate on the matter either way - it would have to be a constitutional question (which would require ratification of 2/3 of the states, which is not possible without red and blue agreeing)

All that to say the feds are pretty much out of the abortion question practically speaking until/unless we have a change in SC justice makeup

Disagree. Something doesn't have to be specifically addressed in the Constitution for it to be an appropriate subject for legislation. There are federal laws covering everything under the sun. The Congress could pass a law legalizing access to abortion, whether it be absolute or (more likely) subject to conditions. I think the American public is largely in agreement over the traditional 'necessity' scenarios, i.e. rape, safety of the mother, discovery that the unborn has certain birth defects or genetic errors. And I think the American public is also largely accepting of abortion being available prior to viability. That doesn't mean all Americans agree, but I think it's well more than a majority who would. And most in Congress would not risk their seat to support such a law.

Overruling Roe doesn't ban abortion. It just would mean it is not, as Roe erroneously claimed, a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I'm a doctor, and I'm in awe that you don't know the difference between a regular human cell and a gamete, which contains only half of your DNA.
You people talk so much about "reason", but you don't seem to have a clue about what you're talking. Please, go study these matters before serving as a human toy for the barons of P1anned P4renthood (and its owners), ok?

Hmm, interesting mr doctor

By your assessment, male masturbation should be considered killing a child. They all have half the genetic information, and a mix of that male's background.

Forgive me for asking this, but as part of your profession you are required to read a lot, yes?
So please inform me as to why you didn't read me already acknowledging that it has half the genetic information, as part of your standard profession. If you ask me that's rather quite unprofessional mr/mrs doctor.
As for your "I can't believe you don't know the difference"

Your own ridiculousness brought me to make such an answer, you should be aware that when you bring up something ridiculous that your going to get a equally ridiculous response back. You were equating a fetus with a child.

which if you are a doctor you should be keenly aware is not the equivalent of a born child, and should be aware of several developmental phases a fetus has to go through before it reaches that stage. And you should also be keenly aware of the stages that an abortion is considered accepted and normal.
So I mockingly responded that you would consider sperm as killing children.
I must ask, what specific profession do you have? A doctor is a catch all term, what is your specific field of study.
Edit: it also appears you have no defense for the fact that a fetus and child are different, sure not genetically different, but at what point in time. So the fact you only responded to me making a ridiculous assertion, not the fact I accurately pointed out that it is treated very differently in professional fields, leaves me to believe you have no argument to make based on profession, but rather religious beliefs

 

[x65943]

Disagree. Something doesn't have to be specifically addressed in the Constitution for it to be an appropriate subject for legislation. There are federal laws covering everything under the sun. The Congress could pass a law legalizing access to abortion, whether it be absolute or (more likely) subject to conditions. I think the American public is largely in agreement over the traditional 'necessity' scenarios, i.e. rape, safety of the mother, discovery that the unborn has certain birth defects or genetic errors. And I think the American public is also largely accepting of abortion being available prior to viability. That doesn't mean all Americans agree, but I think it's well more than a majority who would. And most in Congress would not risk their seat to support such a law.

Overruling Roe doesn't ban abortion. It just would mean it is not, as Roe erroneously claimed, a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

Please my good sir look into the 10th amendment, you are wrong

 

[Nakamichi]

When will women finally understand?
The only people who get to decide what they can do with their bodies are rich white-men.

 

[SG854]

When will women finally understand?
The only people who get to decide what they can do with their bodies are rich white-men.

Don't worry Women are cooking up something good to stop this.

 

[Hanafuda]

Please my good sir look into the 10th amendment, you are wrong

The Supreme Court has ruled that the interstate commerce clause covers just about anything and everything. Gonzales v. Raich, which had to do with cultivating marijuana, made it possible for Congress to legislate on practically anything that can affect or involve interstate commerce, even indirectly. Since disparate State laws on abortion would necessarily impact interstate commerce in medical services, well, voila.

At least, that's the argument proponents of federally legalizing abortion claim. Chuck Schumer was calling for a bill codifying Roe just yesterday. And the House has passed such a bill once before (didn't pass in the Senate at that time).

 

[The Catboy]

Your "reason" tells me we should murder every person suffering from depression right now. Can you see how disgusting it is what you're saying?

That’s not what I said nor even what I implied. That was a stretch and I hope you warmed up before making it

I'm a doctor

The Demonrats congressmonsters of California are on their way to making it "legal" to kill a child if the mother so wants. They call it "postnatal abortion".
Listen, the powerful people in California are not the only ones in history who legalized human sacrifice, many pagan societies used to do it. That's precisely whre the regressive revolutionary lunatics want to lead us back to, if you haven't noticed yet.

I really have my doubts about your claims of being a doctor. If you are, I have a lot of concerns about your practice and your patients.

 

[Pachee]

When will women finally understand?
The only people who get to decide what they can do with their bodies are rich white-men.

White man bad! Now go check the world map and you will notice that almost all countries were abortion was banned do not even have white men.
-------------------------------

Overall, i am laughing at all this drama, it's twitter all over again. First of, the leak exposes the corruption of these activists and proves that these people do not respect anything, and will do anything they can to achieve their goals. You can't have peace with them around.
Second, they are being massive hypocrites. Just a few months ago they were pretty much demanding that unvaccinated people be punished/excluded from society. What happened to my body my choice? (5 boosters later they still want to double tax the unjabbed here and here)
Plus, those who say they do not care about the kids after they are born, do you do? Because at least in those "prolife" states/cities they are not actively trying to turn their neighborhoods into ghettos where the kids will not have a chance at life having to deal daily with infantilized woke collectivism and gangs/criminals killing people while on the umbrella of the local soros DA.

Disagree. Something doesn't have to be specifically addressed in the Constitution for it to be an appropriate subject for legislation. There are federal laws covering everything under the sun. The Congress could pass a law legalizing access to abortion, whether it be absolute or (more likely) subject to conditions. I think the American public is largely in agreement over the traditional 'necessity' scenarios, i.e. rape, safety of the mother, discovery that the unborn has certain birth defects or genetic errors. And I think the American public is also largely accepting of abortion being available prior to viability. That doesn't mean all Americans agree, but I think it's well more than a majority who would. And most in Congress would not risk their seat to support such a law.

Overruling Roe doesn't ban abortion. It just would mean it is not, as Roe erroneously claimed, a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

Very correct. Heart Beat/Brain Activity is where laws should be based on.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

*cracks knuckles* This shall be fun.

People screeching and reeing about this, the right to kill babies, because "my body, my choice", even though once upon a time, they fought the right to keep the baby in their body to be born, now they fight for the right to kill it. Only in very rare circumstances should this be allowed, abortion I mean, due to things like rape, saving the life of the mother, incest, things like that, but that's not the case here. Don't act like it's a common occurrence and that you absolutely need abortion when you don't like we're still in medieval times and we have zero advancements in technology and knowledge. Nowadays, most women want to have an abortion so they don't have to deal with the inconvenience of having and raising a child. Here's an idea, don't want a kid? Get sexual protection up the ass. It's so easy nowadays there's almost no excuse. Hell, worried that might not work? Don't have sex at all. Be abstinent. Or masturbate. They have sex toys for whatever freaky needs you may have. I just don't understand what's so hard to have as much protection as possible or to just not have sex if you're that scared of having children. Nope, just go straight to abortion right away! It's almost as if some women get pregnant just to have an abortion, and that is just purely demented and evil. This isn't the 1600's. We've advance in technology and options. Most of this push back is either mentally unstable people or laziness and cowardice on wanting to take actual responsibility for their bodies, which is funny when they screech "my body, my choice" from the rooftops. If you really don't want to get pregnant or get a women pregnant, either, if you're a woman, get a blow torch and seal your vagina, or if you're a man, chop off your twig and berries and bury it in the backyard like you would a dead hamster and you'll never have children for as long as you live!

This isn't even something that's going to completely end or outlaw abortion. This just makes it so now each individual state can decide on what abortion laws they want or not. If you need an abortion that bad, places like California will still be happy to accommodate you. Depending on where you live, it's a plane ticket or drive away. Or you can even more there and have all the free abortions you want ya sicko. "But some can't afford it!" Well that's really not my problem now, is it? Start saving up for a trip or permanent move or, as I said before, don't have sex. Easy.

I'm not sure who leaked it, be it liberal or conservative, but it is suspect that mere hours after this was leaked, a whole crowd of people showed up to conveniently protest this. Not a few weeks or days, but literally hours. Smells like a set up to me. Not sure who did it, but the intentions of it is much easier to guess: to either intimidate the supreme court with mob rule to withdraw the decision or something else. But people are done being intimidated now. Go take your twisted murderous agenda and go shove it.

I mean, really, is this normal?:



Lastly, another reason for the freak out, especially for top people in politics, is once again, they're losing control. We're clearly winning this fight, battle after battle, and they can't stand it. From Elon Musk buying twitter to let actual free speech rein, to the recent results in the primaries, to what's happening now, and a whole bunch more to list, the radical left is slowly but surely losing their tyrannical grip on the people.

And the general response from some of these righteous people on topics such as the over turning of Roe v. Wade? Well, let's just let a completely sane lefty take it from here and tell these racist white supremacist republicans what for:

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

And to top it all off, it's amazing how people who supported forced vaccinations and destroying livelihoods over an injection turn around and say it's a women's choice for abortion.



Not to mention on how our honorable chairman Joe Biden's view changed on abortion from the past to now:



Not hypocritical at all, that's for sure. And also, let's make fun of republicans about a false narrative on how they "inject" horse de-wormer, but turn around and tell people how to mix a concoction of abortion pills that include ingredients vets use to treat ulcers in horses:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjb...hares-instructions-to-make-diy-abortion-pills

You just can't make this stuff up. Every day it just gets crazier and crazier. But at the end of the day, we're fighting back, and we're winning and taking this country back to sense and reason. You can think whatever you want here, but the fact is, we're winning, you're not. You know why we're winning? Because we're the actual good guys, you're not. There are actually a lot more of us coming out more and more than the left wing thinkers on this site. Yeah, on this particular site, it's more left wing people here, but depending on where you frequent on the internet, some sites can be left leaning, some can be right leaning. But the fact is, outside the internet, in real life, there are more of us than there are of you who actually want a bright and noble future for our kids who we didn't abort to live in.

 

[AleronIves]

You can think whatever you want here, but the fact is, we're winning, you're not. You know why we're winning? Because we're the actual good guys, you're not.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

I'm glad you understand yourself now, my wayward child. Come to the bright side, we have common sense and chocolate chip cookies

 

[Foxi4]

Oh, don't get me wrong! As you said, a large swath of abortions are for economic reasons. That's undeniable. I just don't believe that people think of it as an impact to society's economy, as your previous example was pointing to. Merely on their own financial future, and the potential prospects for the future kid. I would predict that was the major factor influencing people, whereas the situation where the parents are both financially stable, but just didn't want to have kids would be the vast minority.

I think on Fox, I saw an article saying that there have been approximately 65 million abortions since it was deemed legal. Using the math for the societal impact that you used before, it would look like it has damaged the economy. But the majority of these abortions were probably from a population which is below the poverty line, and 40-50 million extra people below the poverty line would most definitely have a negative effect on the entire country. As you said though, it's a horribly dark and inhumane way to think about this kind of topic.

Oh, damage to the economy was just one example of how you’d translate a death into a quantifiable extent of damage - I mentioned that in reference to the child/old man example, not necessarily the abortions themselves. That being said, 65 million prematurely terminated pregnancies is *a lot*, and underlies the failure of other systems. More widespread contraception, or even easier access to Plan B (which I personally don’t consider an “abortion” - a woman isn’t really pregnant until a fertilised egg is nested in the womb - not every fertilised egg gets to that stage) would prevent many women from having to go through this traumatic experience.

In the same way that pro-choice will advocate for access in red states, pro-life will advocate against access in blue states

However clearly there is no constitutional power for the federal government to legislate on the matter either way - it would have to be a constitutional question (which would require ratification of 2/3 of the states, which is not possible without red and blue agreeing)

All that to say the feds are pretty much out of the abortion question practically speaking until/unless we have a change in SC justice makeup

I have a big problem with this kind of thinking. It is not within the SCOTUS’ purview to invent rights out of whole cloth using unrelated provisions as a justification. The SCOTUS was created with one simple function in mind - looking at specific cases and making a judgement call on whether constitutional rights were violated or not. It was not created to legislate from the bench - there are existing mechanisms to both create new laws, state and federal, and to amend the constitution to include new rights, as you’ve mentioned above. “Waiting for a different SC makeup” is a corrupt way to think about the system, it implies that the powers that be should cram “their own guys” in there whenever they can in order to bypass the inconvenient legislative branch as means of passing policies that we all know wouldn’t pass with overwhelming support otherwise. Law changes very slowly, but it does so for a reason - “pushing” something through SCOTUS changes things nationwide and overnight. It was never meant to work this way, and it’s sad that the court system is abused for political objectives. If abortion, or any other procedure, is to be legitimately enshrined in law as constitutionally protected, it has to go through the exact same process as any other constitutional amendment, rather than get tacked on to provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with it. On top of that, the existence of a right to medical care in general is questionable in the first place, let alone specific procedures.

 

[NoobletCheese]

what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?

What about the baby though? You're concerned about everything except the baby.

We should be concerned about all of those things, and there is a position that takes them all into account and weights them accordingly.

In the case of rape, what if the rape victim is close to birth?

imo the burden of proof is on whoever is proposing that something be killed.

My city council won't even let me chop down a tree without getting their approval.