SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Bear Ribs]

 

[Sailor.X]

No, that isn't even a state issue. That's an individual right to self defense issue. A state can't decide you don't have the right to self defense.

Personally, I'm in favor of an abortion ban at around 8-9 weeks (when I believe life begins), but certainly not later. I do think there needs to be an exception for rape (and incest, as it's almost always rape), as the mother didn't consent to the sex, and thus has no duty towards the child. The obligation to carry the child comes from the mother consenting to sex.

I am against all abortion. No exception. none. Using the safe legal and rare argument. If it was applied to people in the past. It would wipe out whole family lines. 90% of Black People, 90% of White People 90% of Asian people etc. Because a lot of people have an ancestor or 100 that were a product of rape. Light skinned Black People did not come out of no where. And the fact that Abortion to me violates not only God's Law but the 14th Amendment. Not to mention one of my good friends in the Navy was literally a product of rape. His birth mother put him up for adoption. And he went on to be an honorable man that has done many good things for this country.

 

[Spartan303]

Suffice to say the Dems are NOT having a good week, are they…???

This has been the best Pride month ever! Dems got handed 3 major defeats during both Pride and during a Democrat rule of the President, House and Senate. I'm absolutely ecstatic.

 

[Bacle]

I am against all abortion. No exception. none. Using the safe legal and rare argument. If it was applied to people in the past. It would wipe out whole family lines. 90% of Black People, 90% of White People 90% of Asian people etc. Because a lot of people have an ancestor or 100 that were a product of rape. Light skinned Black People did not come out of no where. And the fact that Abortion to me violates not only God's Law but the 14th Amendment. Not to mention one of my good friends in the Navy was literally a product of rape. His birth mother put him up for adoption. And he went on to be an honorable man that has done many good things for this country.

I think if it's a falopean pregnancy that will never be viable and will kill the mother, an abortion is justified.

Same if it's clear the unborn child will never survive outside the womb (water-brain syndrome, massive and lethal deformity being the two biggest issues).

However I agree rape should not get an exception, because you are absolutely right about history, and it is still punishing an innocent, unborn child for the crimes of another. In that case I think the rapist should be forced to pay for medical care for the mother till the child can survive in an incubator, pay for the child's care in the incubator, and then pay put it up for adoption; all this on top of the obvious jail time.

 

[Typhonis]

This is not going to end well.

 

[Abhorsen]

I am against all abortion. No exception. none. Using the safe legal and rare argument. If it was applied to people in the past.

Yeah, I don't care about the safe legal rare bit. I don't want to see one either. But a person has an absolute right to self defense. That means a right to bear arms, and a right to save their life from an ectopic pregnancy through an abortion. Ideally, there would be a way to save the baby too, but right now there isn't.

However I agree rape should not get an exception, because you are absolutely right about history, and it is still punishing an innocent, unborn child for the crimes of another. In that case I think the rapist should be forced to pay for medical care for the mother till the child can survive in an incubator, pay for the child's care in the incubator, and then pay put it up for adoption; all this on top of the obvious jail time.

This position is only valid if you reject the idea that the unborn child is a human life deserving of protection. In that case, why restrict abortion at all?

No, I do believe it is a child. But it is a child the mother had no part in consenting to exist. It basically becomes the violinist argument at that point.

Suppose one day you woke up with a concert violinist hooked up to you surgically because a doctor found that was the only way to save his life. The violinist is in a coma, is a good person, and didn't ask for this. You never signed up for this or consented to this either. It'll take a number of months of surgical attachment before the violinist can safely be detached. Can you pull out your IV when doing so will kill the violinist? I say yes. You have no duty towards the violinist or the doctor. Yes, even if the violinist is a twin separated at birth (i.e. shares your genetics).

Now it would be nice of you to keep the stuff attached, but you are not obligated to.

Note that this is usually used in relation to all abortion, but it isn't valid then, because if you consented to sex, you consented to the chance of having a kid. So the doctor would have a consent form filled out by you.

Look, it's an absolutely shitty situation. I'd like to think I would keep the baby in such a situation. But the baby has no right upon an unconsenting mother that consensual sex provides.

 

[Cherico]

This is not going to end well.

no it wont, I'm pretty sure at this point the supreme court is fucking done with the left pulling this shit, and that we are in for a crack down soon.

 

[Bacle]

No, I do believe it is a child. But it is a child the mother had no part in consenting to exist. It basically becomes the violinist argument at that point.

Suppose one day you woke up with a concert violinist hooked up to you surgically because a doctor found that was the only way to save his life. The violinist is in a coma, is a good person, and didn't ask for this. You never signed up for this or consented to this either. It'll take a number of months of surgical attachment before the violinist can safely be detached. Can you pull out your IV when doing so will kill the violinist? I say yes. You have no duty towards the violinist or the doctor. Yes, even if the violinist is a twin separated at birth.

Now it would be nice of you to keep the stuff attached, but you are not obligated to.

Note that this is usually used in relation to all abortion, but it isn't valid then, because if you consented to sex, you consented to the chance of having a kid. So the doctor would have a consent form filled out by you.

Look, it's an absolutely shitty situation. I'd like to think I would keep the baby in such a situation. But the baby has no right upon an unconsenting mother that consensual sex provides.

I think the violinist argument loses a lot of water when you look at current medical tech and when you consider that even if the mother didn't consent, the child is innocent yet is being killed for the crimes of another.

Babies can survive going in an incubator at about 21 weeks right now.

It is an absolutely shitty situation, and one of the few where I do understand abortion being sought by a woman who wouldn't for a normal pregnancy.

I guess I look at it as the mother is a victim, the child is innocent, and abortion would be punishing an innocent life and creating 2 victims.

 

[Abhorsen]

I think the violinist argument loses a lot of water when you look at current medical tech and when you consider that even if the mother didn't consent, the child is innocent yet is being killed for the crimes of another.

Note that I did leave unspecified the number of months for the violinist for exactly that reason.

If they are already far enough along that an early birth is viable, then yes, 100% do that instead. But if the mother feels she would be further punished by this, then I cannot justify it. Like give her counselling to see if she can do it, but also don't pressure her. She doesn't have the obligation to look out for another before herself until she truly consents to having the kid and caring for it.

 

[Spartan303]

God Damn! Missouri didn't waste any time!

 

[Bear Ribs]

B-But... Minorities are supposed to support Democrats!

 

[Stargazer]

No, I do believe it is a child. But it is a child the mother had no part in consenting to exist. It basically becomes the violinist argument at that point.

Suppose one day you woke up with a concert violinist hooked up to you surgically because a doctor found that was the only way to save his life. The violinist is in a coma, is a good person, and didn't ask for this. You never signed up for this or consented to this either. It'll take a number of months of surgical attachment before the violinist can safely be detached. Can you pull out your IV when doing so will kill the violinist? I say yes. You have no duty towards the violinist or the doctor. Yes, even if the violinist is a twin separated at birth (i.e. shares your genetics).

Now it would be nice of you to keep the stuff attached, but you are not obligated to.

Note that this is usually used in relation to all abortion, but it isn't valid then, because if you consented to sex, you consented to the chance of having a kid. So the doctor would have a consent form filled out by you.

Look, it's an absolutely shitty situation. I'd like to think I would keep the baby in such a situation. But the baby has no right upon an unconsenting mother that consensual sex provides.

Yes I'm familiar with the "violinist" argument. I don't think it's valid. For one, it's a ridiculous hypothetical because no medical situation exists where attaching one person to another person would be medically beneficial. Two, abortion is not just a matter of disconnecting an unborn child from the mother. It kills the unborn child, then removes it from the womb. If it is wrong to kill a unborn child generally, then it is wrong to kill an unborn child if that child was a product of rape/incest. The mother doesn't have the right to kill the child (and neither does any "doctor" to perform a procedure that would kill the child.)

 

[Bacle]

Note that I did leave unspecified the number of months for the violinist for exactly that reason.

If they are already far enough along that an early birth is viable, then yes, 100% do that instead. But if the mother feels she would be further punished by this, then I cannot justify it. Like give her counselling to see if she can do it, but also don't pressure her. She doesn't have the obligation to look out for another before herself until she truly consents to having the kid and caring for it.

I would say it would be better to give her incentives to carry the child, rather than 'pressure' of a negative sort.

I mean being able to own every cent the rapist makes for the rest of their lives, along with maybe being able to say castrate the rapist themselves, might be good incentives for a woman to wait till it can survive in an incubator.

Make it so a woman who is raped does not feel the need to abort the child, because letting it live means she can make the rapist's life hell in even more ways, even if she never sees the child again after it goes in the incubator.

 

[Stargazer]

I don't think inducing early labor is an acceptable option. It puts the unborn child at unnecessary risk, and thus goes against any doctor's oath to do no harm.

 

[Bacle]

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Did you guys catch Biden's speech?

I'm pretty sure all of it was grounds for impeachment.

 

[Cherico]

Did you guys catch Biden's speech?

I'm pretty sure all of it was grounds for impeachment.

 

[Abhorsen]

For one, it's a ridiculous hypothetical because no medical situation exists where attaching one person to another person would be medically beneficial.

... Which is why it's an analogy. That's how analogy works. Saying 'but your analogy doesn't happen in the real world' isn't really a valid objection to an analogy. Valid objections are more along the lines of "The analogy doesn't work because it is different in a key area", for example. Like the problem with the classic violinist argument in regards to a consensual pregnancy is that it pretends there was no consent. Or @Bacle argued that the time span was off in what I proposed (I disagree with that argument, but it is a potentially viable lane of attack). Saying it doesn't exist in the real world simply isn't a good argument. I could have had a wizard replace the doctor if I wanted, the analogy would be just as strong. Honestly, using an evil wizard here is more accurate, as the doctor is sorta a stand in for the rapist not the abortionist.

Also, look up direct blood transfusions, they literally do just that, only for hours/minutesnot for months.

wo, abortion is not just a matter of disconnecting an unborn child from the mother. It kills the unborn child, then removes it from the womb. If it is wrong to kill a unborn child generally, then it is wrong to kill an unborn child if that child was a product of rape/incest. The mother doesn't have the right to kill the child (and neither does any "doctor" to perform a procedure that would kill the child.)

It's wrong in general, it's right in specific cases (this applies to most things). Like self defense, or if you never consented to having the kid.

I would say it would be better to give her incentives to carry the child, rather than 'pressure' of a negative sort.

I mean being able to own every cent the rapist makes for the rest of their lives, along with maybe being able to say castrate the rapist themselves, might be good incentives for a woman to wait till it can survive in an incubator.

Make it so a woman who is raped does not feel the need to abort the child, because letting it live means she can make the rapist's life hell in even more ways, even if she never sees the child again after it goes in the incubator.

I'd do all those things, (other than castration, because there's always the chance of a liar, which would make the woman a murderer as well, btw). But ultimately, it is the woman's body, her choice. See I'm pro choice, but the woman makes her choice when she consents to sex. That's her choice, right there, not later. Only this time, she didn't get a choice, so she needs to have one.

 

[Terthna]

I am against all abortion. No exception. none. Using the safe legal and rare argument. If it was applied to people in the past. It would wipe out whole family lines. 90% of Black People, 90% of White People 90% of Asian people etc. Because a lot of people have an ancestor or 100 that were a product of rape. Light skinned Black People did not come out of no where. And the fact that Abortion to me violates not only God's Law but the 14th Amendment. Not to mention one of my good friends in the Navy was literally a product of rape. His birth mother put him up for adoption. And he went on to be an honorable man that has done many good things for this country.

Well I'm not; I'm an agnostic who believes abortion should be available as an option to those women who's pregnancy endangers their lives, and those who's children are shown in the womb to have serious birth defects, as well as rape victims. And I say that as someone who is autistic, knowing I would have been aborted using that criteria.

 

[Typhonis]

no it wont, I'm pretty sure at this point the supreme court is fucking done with the left pulling this shit, and that we are in for a crack down soon.

What can the SC do to crack down on the Left as it were?