News Roe v. Wade overturned

[sandorski]

Hmmm.

Leaving the religious nutters out of it (they really don't help the argument I think and do far more harm than good to rationale conversions).

Scientific consensus would be life begins at conception. That holds true for all species*. Including humans. DNA distinct from parents = life distinct from parents.

*Well, maybe not when asexual reproduction.


So unless you can find accepted descriptions of pre-birth being a different species, then when a fetus is aborted, a human life is ended. That is not really disputable.


The abortion questions revolve more around the consciousness of that life and rights of that life.

There is more to consider than where the "Start" is.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Everyone is gonna suffer over this.

Regardless of your opinion on Roe v Wade - repealing it like this is a complete f**king disaster.

Where are the support mechanisms for women who really don't want to carry a pregnancy to term? Where are the support mechanisms for parents who cannot afford to raise the child? Where are the social car mechanisms for children whose parents aren't fit to raise them?

It's almost like conservatives don't give a shit and aren't actually the party of life because they would if they were

 

[MrSquished]

Everyone is gonna suffer over this.

Regardless of your opinion on Roe v Wade - repealing it like this is a complete f**king disaster.

Where are the support mechanisms for women who really don't want to carry a pregnancy to term? Where are the support mechanisms for parents who cannot afford to raise the child? Where are the social car mechanisms for children whose parents aren't fit to raise them?

We've all been saying this for years. What I'm amazed that is there is no Democrat with a major platform just repeatedly saying this challenge the Republicans to show their pro-life for a newborn baby and a single mother with no resources. Repeat that question. Democrats are so stupid. They assume that this is just common knowledge but start to know the electorate, they're too stupid to make these connections

 

[HurleyBird]

Losing an entire generation
Guess it doesnt matter when your plan is to snuff their voices before they can make em count.

I know you don't mean it this way, but in a vacuum that sounds incredibly pro-life. Just kind of funny and ironic.

Small props to that singer for excluding Roberts in her list of "hated justices," since contrary to common belief he didn't actually vote to overturn Roe.

 

[fskimospy]

I know you don't mean it this way, but in a vacuum that sounds incredibly pro-life. Just kind of funny and ironic.

Small props to that singer for excluding Roberts in her list of "hated justices," since contrary to common belief he didn't actually vote to overturn Roe.

He did - he joined the opinion. He also made a concurrence saying he would have gone less far if he were writing it but he 100% voted to overturn Roe.

 

[MrSquished]

He did - he joined the opinion. He also made a concurrence saying he would have gone less far if he were writing it but he 100% voted to overturn Roe.

Why are Democrats so stupid they don't call out the GOP policies that are anti-life - such as no help for people/s healthcare, childcare, housing, wages, etc... Including for the newborn baby and unprepared mother they are forcing to have a baby?

It's not that hard to do. Just keep asking them and let them look stupid when they deflect.

 

[eelw]

He did - he joined the opinion. He also made a concurrence saying he would have gone less far if he were writing it but he 100% voted to overturn Roe.

No, officially he only supported Mississippi 15 week restriction.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Well, they've already tried it, even before the overturning of Roe.

Missouri House blocks effort to limit access to out-of-state abortions • Missouri Independent

The proposal would have made it illegal to perform or “aid or abet” an abortion for a Missouri resident — regardless of where it occurs.

missouriindependent.com

I wouldn't put it past the Supremes to find some tortuous reasoning to allow such laws. Quite intrigued to see what they would come up with, in fact.

A discussion of the topic here

https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1515&context=fac_articles

Seems the argument against laws like the one Missouri attempted depends heavily on the precedent of Bigelow v. Virginia, but it doesn't seem unimaginable that this court could decide that ruling was "wrong", and in any case states could just do it anyway as it would take time for it to wind its way to the Supremes.

Trying and succeeding are two different things.. Everyone keeps trying to argue as if such a law has been passed, and upheld by the SCOTUS.. It hasn't happened or even been tried in court.. meaning you are all assuming and theorizing.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You sound like Republicans when Obama was elected...theyre going to take my guns!!!

SCOTUS has reversed over 230 decisions they themselves have made and the world didnt end.

“no you” is not a good look.

get your head out of the sand

 

[NWRMidnight]

Uncle Thomas just wrote yesterday that Texas should have the authority to criminally prosecute gay people for having sex in their home if the police come in and witness it. There is no low this fascist court can't slink under.

What does that have to do with what we are discussing? you are now grasping at straws to try and argue your hypothesized assumptions that has zero legal standing supporting it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

One difference Skippy, Clarence Thomas has already announced @ch33zw1z is justified in his concern.

Just another red herring from black angst.

 

[kt]

No, officially he only supported Mississippi 15 week restriction.

No, he has 1 vote and he voted to overturn Roe. It doesn't matter what he says because we already know where his decision lands when it comes down to a vote.

 

[HurleyBird]

He did - he joined the opinion.

Incorrect.

Dobbs decision

www.documentcloud.org

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GOR- SUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KA- VANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion.

 

[zinfamous]

So exactly at what point does a fetus become a person with rights?

What level of development does the soul develop?

what? First: there is no soul, or, at the very least, it isn't science and it isn't arguable or testable, so it is irrelevant here. It's an argument from religion, so it has no place in law or any type of debate that depends on testable, fundamental laws of nature.

fertilization, if it somehow happens, starts you at a ~30% chance of maybe an implantation happening, if the zygote even manages to survive the next 3 days. There is no Biologist that would ever defend the preposterous notion that life begins at conception. It's utter nonsense, and completely defeated by the basic work (those of us that work in reproductive biology) do every single day.

 

[zinfamous]

Scientific consensus would be life begins at conception. That holds true for all species*. Including humans. DNA distinct from parents = life distinct from parents.

No, not at all. No one that works in the "field of life" thinks this. There isn't any serious evidence to support such a claim.

Why do I keep coming in here and seeing all of these whoevers make blanket claims that some "science" from who knows wherever, has made a fundamentally wrong claim about how and when life begins?

Where are you not-at-all biologists digging up this nonsense? It's quite strange.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Obama was elected to office and the right acted on thinly veiled racism and an unfounded claim of gun restrictions. Scotus are unelected and serve for life and have already shown their willingness to essentially misrepresent if not actually lie under oath during their confirmation. Also raising a future ruling on contraception and marriage equality doesn't inspire confidence that the separation of church and state will hold.
So entirely unlike the rightwing fear mongering about Obama.

he tried the ad hominem because his “states rights” argument is bogus as soon as states start penalizing people for doing things outside of that state.

can’t wait for the mandatory vaccinations now that body autonomy and medical privacy is toast!

 

[fskimospy]

What does that have to do with what we are discussing? you are now grasping at straws to try and argue your hypothesized assumptions that has zero legal standing supporting it.

You do realize that they don’t care, right?

 

[NWRMidnight]

You do realize that they don’t care, right?

You don't know how they would rule.. You and the other's are just theorizing based off of assumptions. IF they ruled in that way, guess what, that means every state can enforce their state laws on their residence in every state across the country. You want to go to Vegas and gamble, but it's illegal in your state, guess what, you can't or you will go to jail. You want to Washington, Colorado, etc to smoke weed, you can't, or you will go to jail because it's illegal in your state.. State residence cannot be tried for legal actions in another state.. They have NO jurisdiction period, ONLY the federal government has such authority to enforced laws across all states. again there is NO legal standing for states to do this.. Just theories and assumptions based on feelz.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You don't know how they would rule.. You and the other's are just theorizing based off of assumptions. IF they ruled in that way, guess what, that means every state can enforce their state laws on their residence in every state across the country. You want to go to Vegas and gamble, but it's illegal in your state, guess what, you can't or you will go to jail. You want to Washington, Colorado, etc to smoke weed, you can't, or you will go to jail because it's illegal in your state.. You cannot be tried for legal actions in another state.. They have NO jurisdiction period.. again there is NO legal standing.. Just theories and assumptions based on feelz.

theories and assumptions is exactly how R’s do things.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

View attachment 63571

No.... not fucking liars.
More like fucking people who believed the fucking liars in the first place.
Everyone knew, we all knew THIS is what the game plan was from day one.
A little too late to call them liars, better to tell the people in America to get your ass out of TikTok and..... FUCKING WAKE YOURSELF UP. Hello!!!!

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years, including when it struck down legal segregation

There is value in observing legal precedent, but sometimes circumstances, logic or judges’ views determine it’s time to overturn it.

theconversation.com

"
It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But it’s inevitable that sometimes, the precedent has to go, and a court has to overrule another court, or even its own decision from an earlier case.


In its upcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court faces the question of whether to overrule itself on abortion rights. Recent laws in Texas and Mississippi restrict the right of women to terminate pregnancies in ways that appear to challenge the long-standing precedent of the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which allowed women to have abortions in most circumstances.


Over the centuries, courts have stated many reasons they should adhere to precedent. First is the idea of equity or justice, under which “like cases should be decided alike,” as one senior federal judge put it. If a court in the past reviewed a particular set of facts and decided a case in a specific way, fairness dictates it should decide another similar case the same way. Precedent promotes uniformity and consistency in the law."


No lie, just the facts. Too bad you don't like them.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Look. I think this was a terrible ruling. But many people are misunderstood in that it outlaws abortion federally. It doesnt.

Basic human autonomy is not a fucking state-by-state right. Its a basic human right and should be codified at the federal level. This isnt something you can equivocate on. Its that simple.

 

[MrSquished]

Imagine how evil you have to be to proclaim yourself pro-life. Forcing teenagers, young girls. Women in poverty with little resources, so many other situations. To force them to carry a non-viable fetus to term and then provide no social safety net or services to help that helpless little baby and that helpless girl or woman. Often without the man there and he gets off with nothing. And you call yourself pro-life.

They are pro un viable fetus, then after that it's fuck you to the baby and fuck you to the mother. How sick

I mean we know Taj is a piece of garbage already but all these pro-lifers are just so so sickening to me.

Democrats need to start saying this to Republicans in debates and in ads and in speeches.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't know how they would rule.. You and the other's are just theorizing based off of assumptions. IF they ruled in that way, guess what, that means every state can enforce their state laws on their residence in every state across the country. You want to go to Vegas and gamble, but it's illegal in your state, guess what, you can't or you will go to jail. You want to Washington, Colorado, etc to smoke weed, you can't, or you will go to jail because it's illegal in your state.. State residence cannot be tried for legal actions in another state.. They have NO jurisdiction period, ONLY the federal government has such authority to enforced laws across all states. again there is NO legal standing for states to do this.. Just theories and assumptions based on feelz.

Have you not read the news recently?

 

[MrSquished]

Have you not read the news recently?

Honestly. Supreme Court is now a political tool of the far right-wing ideology. Most of what they say and these opinions is just jibber jabber nonsense with no legal basis, it's just about their feels and religious beliefs.

Most of the Republican party doesn't care about democracy either. We've seen that too.

It's only going to get way worse unless something completely drastic happens.

I don't how people are still that naive.

 

[Indus]

Look. I think this was a terrible ruling. But many people are misunderstood in that it outlaws abortion federally. It doesnt.

Lets be honest about something..

Do you trust SCOTUS at their word that they won't go further when its been mentioned by Thomas that they will review other cases?

I don't believe them for one moment..

They are Christian radicals and they want Christian Sharia..

So for them
Step 1: no abortion (control women)
Step 2: no marriage equality (control men)
Step 3: no privacy in bedroom.. arrest gays/ trans (villify the others)
Step 4: (public) executions of those that don't conform to their radical Christianity views. (expel the others)

You might think its hyperbole but just see how some countries go from normal to extreme and we're well on our way to becoming one.. (everyone likes to look at Nazi Germany.. but its more realistic to look at Iran, or Poland, or Hungary)

And if anyone has any inkling of common sense.. the democrats or voters are going to save us.. you're dreaming..

Their solution to the political earthquake was read a poem and sing some songs. They have no plans to fight this.. just to blame the other side and send out fundraising emails.

The only thing that stops us sliding further is a national divorce and for us to go our separate ways before we kill each other in another uncivil war.

I have my doubts on us doing the right thing.
They have wanted this for 5 decades now and they'll push hard for their utopia.