This may sound radical but Maybe use birth control if u dont want to get pregnant? Don't they have something u cam inject that lasts several months or yrs? Probs cheaper and safer than an abortion.
If it’s not wrong for a rape victim to terminate their unwanted pregnancy, then it’s not wrong for anyone else to terminate their unwanted pregnancy.
At 3-4 weeks, a zygote is the size of a grain of salt. Is that a human? Defining it based on a 'soul' is religious nonsense 70%+ of the US doesnt agree with. Jews have a right to abortion codified, why should your evangelical BS define the line?
They are not children. They do not have developed "brains", and are not viable for life. Heart muscles can beat on their own in a petri-dish, is that "alive"? What about ectopic pregnancies? Ever hear about "ancephaly"? There are fetuses that develop a heart beat but never have their neural tubes close. You'd force a woman to bring that thing to term, risking her own life and going through the pains of labor for it? There a many many conditions that produce inviable fetuses, or medical conditions that put a woman's life at risk if they continue pregnancy. Some rare ones are not found until the later stages of pregnancy. Are we going to start prosecuting women for miscarriages (has already happened in Texas)? It's no one's goddam business, and if you don't have a medical degree, you should not be telling women what they should or should not do with their pregnancy. It's a health decision. You want the government to start poking their noses into these private discussions between a woman and her Doctor? You would force an 11 year old child to give birth? Are we going to start prosecuting people who use heroine and meth during pregnancy and force them to carry babies to term that they don't want? News flash, they won't stop using drugs when they are pregnant. Banning abortion doesn't save "babies", it kills women. Are we going to start to be able to sign our fetuses up for life-insurance (since they are people now)? Can we give fetuses social security cards? Can we claim them as dependents on our taxes? Do we celebrate conception days like birthdays? If a woman punches her own stomach, or smokes a cigarrete, or eats raw fish when she is pegnant, or has a miscarriage for any reason, can she be prosecuted for "child abuse"? The answer is no because the law does not recognize them as being "alive". If it's in your religious belief that life begins at conception, great for you, I will protect your right to have religious freedom and believe what you want to believe. You cannot force others to share that belief in this country and our government must be separate from those religious beliefs, that is one of our inaliable rights/freedoms. Some people claim this is a "christian" nation, no it is a nation of religious freedom which includes freedom from religion I.E. I have the right to live my life without following someone else's religious doctrine or rules. If we do not as a nation recognize the fetus as being "alive", then it is the woman's choice to end the pregnancy without Government interference and with private conversations with her Doctor, no one else gets to be involved, period.
Should society kill people with down syndrome? The answer is a resounding NO, but according to you, it is ok to kill people who do not have developed brains.
The problem of the whole abortion issue is that it’s nuanced.
It’s difficult to say you can get one if only for XXX reasons, as then you have to prove those reasons and how is that done? I have never been raped, but sure I can be coerced many times to engage in sex acts for fear of abuse. So technically I haven’t been raped, but I’ve been in abusive relationships for sure.
And there are many people who do want to keep abortion legal, but want to place limits on it. I think something liberals or Democrats won’t address is after, say, 3 months, a fetus does start to look very life-like and at 5 months, it could possibly live on its or their own if needed.
And then there’s the term “pro-life.” If you’re racist, don’t support an adequate social safety net or think our current medical insurance scheme works for America, then I have a tough time believing you’re pro-life.
On top of that, for sure religious or Republican women have used birth control or had abortions, preventing the natural course of what happens when you have sex. I’m curious how they privately feel about Roe. And what Republican politician hasn't asked his mistress to have a termination of pregnancy?
Sure, you can go to a state that offers it, but they will be overwhelmed and then there are states that might ban crossing state lines to get abortions.
I can’t believe with all the problems this country has, we’re still talking about this. Abortions overall are down, and in fact people are having sex less than they ever had, according to multiple studies. Thank you, smartphones and porn.
None of this is good for soundbites, but if you’re deeply analytical and level-headed, it’s a difficult issue to rule on or legislate.
If the Democrats try to make this a major campaign issue for them it will be a disaster, which probably means they'll do it because they are so out of touch. Except in heavily progressive area's and in the MSM most American's are not going to care strongly about abortion now being a state level policy, which is what it should be based on the constitution, rather than federal government policy. The people who are going to go bonkers over this would never vote Republican under any circumstance. The Americans who are up for grabs in elections care way more about the economy, inflation, and what latest nonsense is being inserted into the schools. A swing voter in Virginia will not be influenced by whether Texas can now make abortion illegal in Texas.
Midterm elections are about turnout. Prior to this, democrats didn't have an issue to motivate their base. A potential nationwide abortion ban is the perfect issue with the perfect villain. Telling the base that an illegitimate court is going to take away rights from women, minorities, gays, etc. is an issue that touches almost the entire coalition that voted for Biden.
Why is the U.S. Supreme Court illegitimate?
What rights are the Supreme Court taking away?
If the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to create rights, wouldn't it also have the power to terminate rights?
When you have a clearly politicised Supreme Court - as this draft decision shows - that is but one more nail in the coffin of a functioning democracy. As commentators are now suggesting, it will be gone in the US by the end of this decade.
When has the U.S. Supreme Court not been politicized?
Any body of appointees formed by elected officials is politicized by the very nature of its formation.
As the liberal protestors in Washington are calling for Democrats to "pack the court" (i.e. increase the number of justices to permit the party in power (i.e. Democrats) to appoint the additional number of justices), I suppose such a Democrat packed court would not be politicized because Democrats never politicize anything.
Midterm elections are about turnout. Prior to this, democrats didn't have an issue to motivate their base. A potential nationwide abortion ban is the perfect issue with the perfect villain. Telling the base that an illegitimate court is going to take away rights from women, minorities, gays, etc. is an issue that touches almost the entire coalition that voted for Biden.
Why is the U.S. Supreme Court illegitimate?
What rights are the Supreme Court taking away?
If the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to create rights, wouldn't it also have the power to terminate rights?
I'm not here to debate with conservatives what issues will motivate democrats in 2022 and 2024. I'd rather talk to a homeless guy about the merits of his cardboard sign.
I'm just saying this is an issue where the right wing may have finally caught the car. There are a ton of suburban women who have voted mostly for republicans, who felt that the right to abortions was never really in question. They now live with a new set of facts. Most of my wife's family fit this description.
At 3-4 weeks, a zygote is the size of a grain of salt. Is that a human? Defining it based on a 'soul' is religious nonsense 70%+ of the US doesnt agree with. Jews have a right to abortion codified, why should your evangelical BS define the line?
At 3-4 weeks, a zygote is the size of a grain of salt. Is that a human? Defining it based on a 'soul' is religious nonsense 70%+ of the US doesnt agree with. Jews have a right to abortion codified, why should your evangelical BS define the line?
Abortions do not take place at 3-4 weeks.
Should our laws mimic Jewish law?
Yea, most females won't know their pregnant until week 4-6 or later. First missed period, a week or two of 'maybe i'm just late'.
Statistics I googled show 78% of abortions are prior to 9 weeks.
When you have a clearly politicised Supreme Court - as this draft decision shows - that is but one more nail in the coffin of a functioning democracy. As commentators are now suggesting, it will be gone in the US by the end of this decade.
When has the U.S. Supreme Court not been politicized?
Any body of appointees formed by elected officials is politicized by the very nature of its formation.
As the liberal protestors in Washington are calling for Democrats to "pack the court" (i.e. increase the number of justices to permit the party in power (i.e. Democrats) to appoint the additional number of justices), I suppose such a Democrat packed court would not be politicized because Democrats never politicize anything.
There are actually reforms that have been proposed that could to some degree de-politicize the court. One is having an even number of justices and each party gets to appoint an equal number on each side (8 justices with 4 Dem appointed and 4 Republican appointed, for example). Judges could only rule with a majority meaning that every decision has to be bipartisan to some degree. Another is to strip the supreme court of jurisdiction over whether a law is constitutional. The US is fairly unique in having a lifetime appointed judicial panel with the power to strike down legislation based on the constitution.
I actually think that the supreme court should be set up more like the circuit courts of appeal. Expand the court to 25 justices. Allow appeals to be heard by three justices with discretion to hear a case en banc. No more lifetime appointments. Justices are drawn from the circuit courts of appeal for 5 year terms on a rotating basis by seniority. This would fix what for practitioners is actually the real flaw with the supreme court. They have become a star chamber and only hear the big "important" cases on social issues, etc. The supreme court regularly passes on hearing splits among the circuit courts on very important issues of procedure and Federal law because they limit their docket to just the big juicy cases.
I don’t think you can find an example of a law being pushed in the US that would mandate vaccination. Schools my require it, but you can choose an alternative.
States are passing laws that would bring criminal charges in the case of abortion.
I don’t think you can find an example of a law being pushed in the US that would mandate vaccination. Schools my require it, but you can choose an alternative.
States are passing laws that would bring criminal charges in the case of abortion.
I see your point, but no child can survive "on their own" until well into childhood. They're all dependent on others to care for them. Are they not human until they no longer require other humans for support, biological or otherwise? This isn't a sufficient definition of life, in my opinion. It's too simple.
This issue tears me apart. While I 100% support a woman's right to choose what happens to their bodies, I can't NOT ask myself if anyone is considering the rights of those unborn, regardless of the circumstances. These beings - potential humans, fetuses, the unborn, whatever term suits your purpose - have no voice in these matters. They have different DNA, different biological profiles than the mother. They are separate beings.
The issue, I suppose is biology. Females are designed to be incubators for 9 months, like it or not. They have no umbilical cord or placenta until impregnation. Are those part of the female body? OR the unborn? Who owns the decision to remove them? Whose life depends on them?
I support all life. To me, one must be consistent though. For my political views, the Dems seem to base most of their policies (civil, social, otherwise) on the collective rights of all humans. I vote Dem. But I'm also Pro-Life. Pro-Birth. Pro-Fetus.
A Pro-Life Democrat. I think I'm allowed to be so.
The key distinction is "never viable for life", meaning, without a uterus to sustain them, they would not survive. I do not count fetuses that fall under this distinction, as human beings or individuals, and there are late term mutations that make this happen later on in pregnancy as well. Once they are born and physcally seperate (can be bottle fed, independent blood flow etc etc), they are then human. I do not agree with later term abortions unless the fetus is unviable or the mother's life is at risk (then an emergency C-section is the option). I am happy you can choose to be and believe whatever you want to (yay America!). We cannot take life-insurance out on fetuses, we cannot give them ss cards, until they are born. This means the government does not recognize them as individuals either, and that means the Mother has more rights under non-religious law than the fetus does, and she should be able to decide how to proceed with her pregnancy. You and your family are allowed to do as you see fit/believe religiously.
Correct, but the fact Alito (had a law clerk) write a whole draft means it’s unlikely, near zero chance, that the holding is going to change. They may edit it heavily so that five justices agree with every word, down to the reasoning and use of precedent, etc., but this draft wouldn’t exist if they didn’t have five justices on board with overturning Roe and Casey.