Roe v Wade just got overturned official thread

bluh wrote:

Harambe wrote:

The Roe overturning has emboldened hardline anti-abortion types (most of whom are unwitting/witting pawns). There will be more of these horrifying attacks on women, many of them experiencing painful tragedy. This is what ending Roe will do.

You think this is OK because, hey, some progressives supported abortion laws I didn't like. Well, you sure showed them. Who really cares about poor women in Mississippi?

In your eyes, losing a baby is just a natural happening in a woman's life, so throwing her in jail for it is, on the margin, not really that bad! How nice

These accusations are all intellectually dishonest and vacuous. You have no idea of my views and are attributing your prejudices against people who are different from you to me, so I won’t engage on that front further.

What you have admitted is that you will use any pretext to construct the argument you like: overturning Roe is bad because something that could happen with or without Roe happened. Your intellectual inconsistency has been laid bare.

Chiselworth wrote:

Some interesting points have been raised about Clarence Thomas's concurrence, where he basically says he is going to try and find cases where he can overturn a list of substantive due process cases like Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same-sex sex), and Obergfell (same-sex marriage). Thomas notably left the Loving case off his list of targets, which did use the Due Process clause (as well as Equal Protection) to strike down miscegenation laws. A little bit of hypocrisy is smoldering here as Thomas is presumably a big fan of miscegenation (he practices it to some degree), while he's harsh critic of same-sex anything. While there are differences between interracial sex and marriage and same-sex sex and marriage, they are much more similar than they are different for Constitutional purposes. Thomas may have to explain in an opinion some day soon why he is allowed to marry who he wants against the objection of many, while other people are not. He can do it, but it will take some legal gymnastics that will be difficult and tenuous.

(Frankly, after seeing photos of Ginni Thomas, I just assumed she had to be Clarence's gay beard and he would drop the campaign against Obergfell once it was decided. I was wrong.).

Half true wrote:

So you’re arguing for abortions to be ok up until week 8-12? That’s when neurological impulses begin in the brain. 80% of voters agree with restricting abortion after the first trimester, so you’re right in line with the majority.

The difference in a brain dead adult is that the potential for that person is over, unfortunately. Due to trauma or unfortunate circumstances, their brain has failed them. However, for a life inside the womb things are just beginning.

You’re snuffing out a unique life before it even has the chance to realize it’s potential when you abort a baby. that’s quite a bit different than a brain dead person dying.

I work in healthcare as well. And this is why whenever a pregnant woman suffers any sort of trauma, such as a car accident, her first concern is her baby. Not her “clump of cells”, her baby.

Wise Old Man wrote:

Half true wrote:

So you’re arguing for abortions to be ok up until week 8-12? That’s when neurological impulses begin in the brain. 80% of voters agree with restricting abortion after the first trimester, so you’re right in line with the majority.

The difference in a brain dead adult is that the potential for that person is over, unfortunately. Due to trauma or unfortunate circumstances, their brain has failed them. However, for a life inside the womb things are just beginning.

You’re snuffing out a unique life before it even has the chance to realize it’s potential when you abort a baby. that’s quite a bit different than a brain dead person dying.

I work in healthcare as well. And this is why whenever a pregnant woman suffers any sort of trauma, such as a car accident, her first concern is her baby. Not her “clump of cells”, her baby.

All of the “potential” stuff is just emotion. Sperm and eggs have potential too, so do stem cells. They have not yet reached to universally recognized standard of human life. Nobody is being forced to terminate a pregnancy they want to keep it going, or being told not to be protective of their clump of cells. I am arguing for a rationale biological standard for when the clump might have reached a point of having rights as a living human under the law. There are multiple posters arguing that fertilized eggs and embryos have rights equal too, or in fact superseding, the rights of the mother, and I think this is nonsense based on an established definition of human life.

Wise Old Man wrote:

Half true wrote:

So you’re arguing for abortions to be ok up until week 8-12? That’s when neurological impulses begin in the brain. 80% of voters agree with restricting abortion after the first trimester, so you’re right in line with the majority.

The difference in a brain dead adult is that the potential for that person is over, unfortunately. Due to trauma or unfortunate circumstances, their brain has failed them. However, for a life inside the womb things are just beginning.

You’re snuffing out a unique life before it even has the chance to realize it’s potential when you abort a baby. that’s quite a bit different than a brain dead person dying.

I work in healthcare as well. And this is why whenever a pregnant woman suffers any sort of trauma, such as a car accident, her first concern is her baby. Not her “clump of cells”, her baby.

All of the “potential” stuff is just emotion. Sperm and eggs have potential too, so do stem cells. They have not yet reached to universally recognized standard of human life. Nobody is being forced to terminate a pregnancy they want to keep it going, or being told not to be protective of their clump of cells. I am arguing for a rationale biological standard for when the clump might have reached a point of having rights as a living human under the law. There are multiple posters arguing that fertilized eggs and embryos have rights equal too, or in fact superseding, the rights of the mother, and I think this is nonsense based on an established definition of human life.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Yawn^23 wrote:

A sperm is not human life, nor is an egg. The union between them is what creates a new human with unique dna. Did you really sleep through biology class?

1. A zygote or an early stage fetus is a long way from a fully fledged person. Half of all zygotes just never attach and are ejected, but we’re not sifting through every fertile women’s menses to see if a child has died.

2. Most people agree with the above, which is why they’re ok with an early stage abortion. Find me someone who’s just as upset about a zygote that doesn’t implant as they are about the kids who were killed in that school in Texas last month.

3. All the people who are okay with abortions only in cases of rape are telling me that this isn’t about not killing children but instead it’s about sticking it to women who have sex when they weren’t supposed to.

4. If you’re going to say that it’s ok to force women to give birth children they don’t want to because the children will die otherwise, then it must also be okay for the State to force you to give up a kidney or lung to someone who will die without it.