[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Vassenor]

I am pro-choice
I simply explain you how pro-life people view abortion, they view it as a crime, as a murder. They do not understand that abortion is right or do not want to understand.

I have no doubt abortion is going back to be illegal, to back-alley abortions, because I doubt the conservative justice (which should never be a thing. A judge should be impartial, apolitical) view abortion as a right.

It all just comes down to whether you value sex or a child's life more. If you just want to have sex with no consequences, then kill the baby. If you want to preserve the sanctity of human life, don't get an abortion.

Remember, every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good.

[Diahon]

Poland is a fucking dystopian shithole

Poland plans to set up register of pregnancies to report miscarriages

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... scarriages

i'd unironically laugh my ass off if this actually drives poland's birth rate through the floor

[The Alma Mater]

I am pro-choice
I simply explain you how pro-life people view abortion, they view it as a crime, as a murder. They do not understand that abortion is right or do not want to understand.

I have no doubt abortion is going back to be illegal, to back-alley abortions, because I doubt the conservative justice (which should never be a thing. A judge should be impartial, apolitical) view abortion as a right.

It all just comes down to whether you value sex or a child's life more. If you just want to have sex with no consequences, then kill the baby. If you want to preserve the sanctity of human life, don't get an abortion.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam (by me as well) - it is intruiging how this "sanctity of life" thing only applies when it can be used to control a womans body - and not when it comes to preventing deaths using e.g. YOUR body

[Esalia]

You are as always welcome to emigrate to the hellhole of Paraguay and take your bedfellows with you.

Relax, we're going to be okay. Whatever legislative move happens you and I are people with good intentions.

The consequences of your "good" intentions are bad enough that no, we're not going to be okay.

[Diahon]

Roe v Wade might finally be gone in the United States. The only way to stop this is to pass a federal abortion law which the Democrats in Congress won't do. If the Supreme Court gets rid of Roe v Wade, abortion will be legal on a state by state basis. It will be on Republicans to pass a federal ban on abortion.

Canada's about to get a big wave of tourists, overwhelmingly female in nature.

ah, yes, americans sending out their worst, the bad teenage welfare moms

amlo will build a wall to keep them all from birthing on their side of the border, i believe

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You are as always welcome to emigrate to the hellhole of Paraguay and take your bedfellows with you.

Relax, we're going to be okay. Whatever legislative move happens you and I are people with good intentions.

Good for you, slavery to women.

[Restored England]

Relax, we're going to be okay. Whatever legislative move happens you and I are people with good intentions.

Good for you, slavery to women.

He’d love El Salvador!

[Fauzjhia]

Canada's about to get a big wave of tourists, overwhelmingly female in nature.

ah, yes, americans sending out their worst, the bad teenage welfare moms

amlo will build a wall to keep them all from birthing on their side of the border, i believe

naw, he's talking about women seeking abortions.
I believe they will go to other states before, since these states are between Canada and their own state, but that is not impossible.

also, might have nothing to do with abortion, how easy it is to renounce your American citizenship ? Because if ever an American woman give birth in Canada, their Children will be considered Canadian citizens.
but, I can see the reason, there are next no chance that Canada will make ever make abortion illegal, we don't have political justices...

[Katganistan]

I mean, ~70% of the country supports it, so if was to be banned again we'd be seeing a pretty severe societal meltdown. (Also, I'm pretty sure no abortion service would actually follow the law, see Texas' absolute inability to enforce its own ban and not being able to host the promised Whistleblower site due to relentless trolling and cyberattacks)

It's just that the 30% that don't are very rich, loud, and corrupt.

I do predict that this will lead to violence not seen in decades though.

Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.

It amazes me, the mental gymnastics of the same people who scream "muh rights!" about wearing a mask for 20 minutes in a grocery store are willing to subject women to needless mental, physical, and ongoing health harm because they can.

No, wait, it really doesn't.

I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.

It is up to the SCOTUS to decide that.

A SCOTUS that was relentlessly forced red by not allowing in Merrick Garland because TWO YEARS was too short a time left in Obama's time as president, and three replaced, with one rammed in the last few MONTHS of Trump's.

As always, the GOP has rules for thee but not for me.

Which is what this abortion mess is.

[Elwher]

pro-life people do not believe abortion is a right, so they do not see reversing Roe vs Wade as taking away a right.

As the law stands right now people have the right to get an abortion. By overturning Roe you are taking that right away. That is all fact. You may not believe that there should be a right to have an abortion, but that does not change the reality that as the law currently is people have that right.

And before Brown, the law gave people the right to insist on separate facilities based on race. By overturning Plessy, that right was taken away. In most cases, granting one group a right takes away a right from another group.

[Katganistan]

Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.

Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.

That's mostly because if it was re-banned then Republicans would be fucked for at least the next decade, and they know that.

Also, certain Reps with less... matrimonially virtuous sex lives might have to experience the joys of multiple child support payments and lawsuits every month.

No, they won't. They will quietly pay to fly their mistresses to where it is legal -- even if that's internationally to keep the scandal quiet.

the pro-life is not in favor of life. its about moralisation

False. I see our society engages in mass murder on a scale that dwarves that of even the worst of the fascists. That is why I am pro life. I don't want to shove women back into the kitchen. I just want them to stop hiring hitmen to murder their own flesh and blood.

Then pay for the consequences of your actions, and support welfare, free healthcare, free daycare, etc so they they can afford the children you're forcing on them and into poverty and possibly abuse and being wards of the state.

The magical thinking that banning abortion without the rest of that is saving lives, and that there is no responsibility to the supports needed to safely put that into effect, and the resulting shocking neglect and abuse of unwanted kids or the deaths of women giving birth who should not be forced to do so is magically God's will, is honestly the thinking of either evil or mentally illness.

Since we aren't certain when fetus becomes a person, shouldn't we give the mothers the benefit of the doubt in determining these matters, preferably after consulting physicians?

We know that women are people, whatever my issues with them lately. We don't know that fetuses are people yet, at least in terms of sapience or sentience.

We are. At birth. Pre birth, not a person. Pre 29 weeks, insensate. Pre 28 weeks, safe to say experiences neither pain nor consciousness, so there you go.

It's those who think science is a dirty word whoreject this -- but they don't seem to reject cell phones, cars, guns, heart surgery, etc. Curious.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

hiring hitmen to murder their own flesh and blood.

And y'all wonder why we think this attitude is completely immoral.

[Arlenton]

Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.

It amazes me, the mental gymnastics of the same people who scream "muh rights!" about wearing a mask for 20 minutes in a grocery store are willing to subject women to needless mental, physical, and ongoing health harm because they can.

No, wait, it really doesn't.

It is up to the SCOTUS to decide that.

A SCOTUS that was relentlessly forced red by not allowing in Merrick Garland because TWO YEARS was too short a time left in Obama's time as president, and three replaced, with one rammed in the last few MONTHS of Trump's.

As always, the GOP has rules for thee but not for me.

Which is what this abortion mess is.

A good strategy doesn't make the Supreme Court less supreme as far as how the system works. They still have final say.

[Spirit of Hope]

It amazes me, the mental gymnastics of the same people who scream "muh rights!" about wearing a mask for 20 minutes in a grocery store are willing to subject women to needless mental, physical, and ongoing health harm because they can.

No, wait, it really doesn't.


A SCOTUS that was relentlessly forced red by not allowing in Merrick Garland because TWO YEARS was too short a time left in Obama's time as president, and three replaced, with one rammed in the last few MONTHS of Trump's.

As always, the GOP has rules for thee but not for me.

Which is what this abortion mess is.

A good strategy doesn't make the Supreme Court less supreme as far as how the system works. They still have final say.

Yeah, its just dumb that Republicans have waged a decades long battle and violated a bunch of democratic norms to overturn one supreme court decision that they didn't like.

[Arlenton]

A good strategy doesn't make the Supreme Court less supreme as far as how the system works. They still have final say.

Yeah, its just dumb that Republicans have waged a decades long battle and violated a bunch of democratic norms to overturn one supreme court decision that they didn't like.

Oh there's more than one. And it is clearly not strategically dumb in any sense, as it is pretty clear that it is working. The idea is to end the legacy of past liberal activist makeups of the court, particularly of the 1950s-60s. Nominating strictly conservatives and originalists, to both the SCOTUS and lower courts, and block any liberal activists is the best way to go about this.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yeah, its just dumb that Republicans have waged a decades long battle and violated a bunch of democratic norms to overturn one supreme court decision that they didn't like.

Oh there's more than one. And it is clearly not strategically dumb in any sense, as it is pretty clear that it is working. The idea is to end the legacy of past liberal activist makeups of the court, particularly of the 1950s-60s. Nominating strictly conservatives and originalists, to both the SCOTUS and lower courts, and block any liberal activists is the best way to go about this.

You're welcome to found your own 17th century society if you so crave for that "originalism" but you'll have to do without antibiotics, vaccines, AR15's, antitank weapons, antiair weapons, modern sanitation and the internal combustion engine.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yeah, its just dumb that Republicans have waged a decades long battle and violated a bunch of democratic norms to overturn one supreme court decision that they didn't like.

Oh there's more than one. And it is clearly not strategically dumb in any sense, as it is pretty clear that it is working. The idea is to end the legacy of past liberal activist makeups of the court, particularly of the 1950s-60s. Nominating strictly conservatives and originalists, to both the SCOTUS and lower courts, and block any liberal activists is the best way to go about this.

Yeah, they've done a great job destroy democratic institutions and norms, I'm not denying that. Nor am I denying that its a smart strategy to get what they want. What I am saying is that it is dumb that they are running around destroying democratic norms so that they can get SCOTUS decisions they don't like overturned. But they appear to care more about achieving their goals than about maintaining a stable democracy.

[Arlenton]

Oh there's more than one. And it is clearly not strategically dumb in any sense, as it is pretty clear that it is working. The idea is to end the legacy of past liberal activist makeups of the court, particularly of the 1950s-60s. Nominating strictly conservatives and originalists, to both the SCOTUS and lower courts, and block any liberal activists is the best way to go about this.

Yeah, they've done a great job destroy democratic institutions and norms, I'm not denying that. Nor am I denying that its a smart strategy to get what they want. What I am saying is that it is dumb that they are running around destroying democratic norms so that they can get SCOTUS decisions they don't like overturned. But they appear to care more about achieving their goals than about maintaining a stable democracy.

Fair enough. We simply have different priorities.

[Arlenton]

Oh there's more than one. And it is clearly not strategically dumb in any sense, as it is pretty clear that it is working. The idea is to end the legacy of past liberal activist makeups of the court, particularly of the 1950s-60s. Nominating strictly conservatives and originalists, to both the SCOTUS and lower courts, and block any liberal activists is the best way to go about this.

You're welcome to found your own 17th century society if you so crave for that "originalism" but you'll have to do without antibiotics, vaccines, AR15's, antitank weapons, antiair weapons, modern sanitation and the internal combustion engine.

Absolute meme of a take.

[Great Algerstonia]

Oh there's more than one. And it is clearly not strategically dumb in any sense, as it is pretty clear that it is working. The idea is to end the legacy of past liberal activist makeups of the court, particularly of the 1950s-60s. Nominating strictly conservatives and originalists, to both the SCOTUS and lower courts, and block any liberal activists is the best way to go about this.

You're welcome to found your own 17th century society if you so crave for that "originalism" but you'll have to do without antibiotics, vaccines, AR15's, antitank weapons, antiair weapons, modern sanitation and the internal combustion engine.

Seems perfectly fine to me

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

i should start a new religion. A religion which clamours for the return of Roman mores and laws circa AUC 727. See how chattel slavery and 20 years of mandatory military service goes down with the originalists.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yeah, they've done a great job destroy democratic institutions and norms, I'm not denying that. Nor am I denying that its a smart strategy to get what they want. What I am saying is that it is dumb that they are running around destroying democratic norms so that they can get SCOTUS decisions they don't like overturned. But they appear to care more about achieving their goals than about maintaining a stable democracy.

Fair enough. We simply have different priorities.

Yeah, prioritizing winning over democracy leads to authoritarianism and dictatorships. Not something I'm ok with, but the Republicans appear to love it.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You're welcome to found your own 17th century society if you so crave for that "originalism" but you'll have to do without antibiotics, vaccines, AR15's, antitank weapons, antiair weapons, modern sanitation and the internal combustion engine.

Absolute meme of a take.

We could also go back to declaring Untermenschen 3/5th of a human being again and repeal everything before the 1st amendment.
So... about that chattel slavery...

[Arlenton]

Fair enough. We simply have different priorities.

Yeah, prioritizing winning over democracy leads to authoritarianism and dictatorships. Not something I'm ok with, but the Republicans appear to love it.

Like I said. Starkly different priorities and views on how the governments of this country should function.

[Arlenton]

Absolute meme of a take.

We could also go back to declaring Untermenschen 3/5th of a human being again and repeal everything before the 1st amendment.
So... about that chattel slavery...

You know that it was the Southern slave owners who wanted to count slaves as a whole person right?