Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

So if a woman is raped at gunpoint and becomes pregnant, the gun is the most protected party in that situation.

 

Depends who the rapist is. He may have affluenza.

 

"Every Abortion Law in America Protects Women with Ectopic Pregnancies"

no abortion law in any state in America prevents lifesaving treatment for women with ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. That was true of abortion laws in 1972, and it’s true of abortion laws in 2022. “All states had at least a life of the mother exception before Roe v. Wade,” Clarke Forsythe, senior counsel at Americans United for Life, told me in an email. See, for example, the language in the Texas abortion statute struck down under Roe v. Wade in 1973 that said nothing in the law applies to an abortion performed “for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” The other lie in Ali’s tweet is the idea that women undergoing abortions will be prosecuted. As Forsythe wrote in 2006, states prosecuted abortionists, not women, under pre-Roe laws.​

Every state abortion law triggered by the overturning of Roe includes an exception at least to save the life of the mother​

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022...rica-protects-women-with-ectopic-pregnancies/

 

The core of the conservative argument can in a lot of ways boil down to- a fetus is a living organism, and thusly a woman must sacrifice part of themselves to keep it alive as it's dependent on them

Which is why I don't understand why I don't see all conservatives pushing for everyone to be forcibly declared an organ donor. It's a situation where you could save another life, if we're ethically and now legally obligated to sacrifice our bodies to save lives, isn't it horribly immoral to not be an organ donor to the point that we should legislate it since we're legislating morality? Because right now dead people have more control over their bodies than living women do

 

And who makes that call? How much percentage does a woman's life have to be in danger before it's legally considered "saving their life"? Do doctors need to consult a lawyer first? Are we going to call a detective in to determine if the womans life was in danger enough? You think doctors who worked their whole life for medical licenses are going to be willing to take the risk of losing that and their livelihood if someone could claim there was a chance for survival without abortion? What happens if a jilted baby daddy disputes that the abortion was necessary, can he sue the woman and/or doctor? Can he force the woman to go get a second opinion in a life or death situation?

I would love y'all to use those brains we are all given to just think about the consequences instead of assuming a phrasing in the law solves it

 

What happens when the rapture comes and all the dead people come back to life. How they going to live without a heart or liver?

It all comes back to religious "feelings" about right and wrong. Don't try to apply logic. If your gut says its right, it's right. If your gut says it's wrong, it's wrong. Easy peasy.

 

Oh I know, I'm just showing how his logic can lead to support of abortions

 

Dude, I posted where you said it and you still deny saying it. It's laughable. And dishonest. Even other people called you out.

Why don't you start debating honestly and address my point instead of running away from it. Just admit it. You are arguing people should have sex if they can't afford a baby. You've said it. I'm not sure why you are claiming I am putting words in your mouth.

 

I'm happy to state it's irresponsible to have sex that could lead to the creation of a baby if you're not in a place where you are able responsibly care for that baby.

That's going to result in 1. An abortion which is a horrible and traumatic thing or 2. The birth of a child in bad circumstances which will place an extreme hardship on the family and child.

*To be clear, this has nothing to do with religion (before you try to claim that).

 

Since all normal sex can lead to the creation of a baby, you are saying it's irresponsible to have sex unless procreation is an acceptable outcome.

And yes, that totally has to do with religion because only a religious person would make such an assertion, or at the very least someone who's values are strongly shaped by religion. Otherwise why would you care if someone has an abortion or not?

 

Yes

Wrong. You can just be someone who wants to exercise their sexual faculties without the possibility of putting a woman/child in a sh** situation. It's basic decency.

 

If a woman decides to have sex but doesn't want to have a child, she's not putting anyone in a sh** situation. That's her choice and it's puzzling you can't respect that choice.

 

I remember bringing this up in an earlier debate and the usual counter argument is about pregnancy being natural. Or about women being irresponsible.

 

I’m curious but do you subscribe to “Purity” culture?

 

Interesting discussion of overturning Roe and the conservatives outcome base approach:



Money shot (26:52): Replacement theory laws were the basis of Alito's opinion. FTW.

 

I’m not ignoring what you’re saying.

You’ve said many times and again in the post above that you blame women even if they’ve been deceived by their partner. Are you denying that?

 

Eh, HTM can't even imagine a scenario where a married couple might opt for an abortion through the advice of her own OB/GYN doctor. Not every woman can push out 8 or 9 kids and be fine and if you want a healthy marriage, a healthy active sex life generally goes together even in old age. But I know of women that have had children already with their husband of multiple decades that opted for an abortion because the woman's body likely would be put under too much stress to endure another pregnancy under the guidance of her OB/GYN doctor no less, and not run into some complications either for the fetus or the long term health of the mother herself. Under your guidelines, you'd say tough t***. Have the fourth kid. Negative consequences be damned. If delivery or complications during pregnancy harmed the mother long term or worse resulted in death, the other three kids would be raised by a mother with disabilities that could have been prevented or absent a mother which could have been prevented if more concern over the woman's health was put into consideration.

Not to mention all the invasion of privacy that'll ensue because of this just to try and discern whether a miscarriage occurred naturally or through abortive measures. Women are already advised to not use period tracking devices (which again you'd think you'd want to encourage since tracking would likely result in less pregnancies but it's having the opposite effect in lieu of overturning Roe) or use social media that's unencrypted and collects data to be stored on multiple data servers when talking about sex among peers. So Signal is now recommended as it does end to end encryption without storing data. You're alienating women, and their voices which need to be heard, which if you're really supportive of them, you'd think that'd be the opposite outcome you'd aspire for. Not to mention the invasion of privacy this opens the door for men, which again you'd think you'd want to be protective of, since you're a dude. As the video below states, Abortion rights are privacy rights.





Personally, I think if an election was set up where only women and OB/GYN staff could vote on abortion, I'd supportive of it. And if women and OB/GYN staff voted in favor of restricting access to abortion, then I'd be good with it. As it stands now though, I'm gonna guess roughly 95+% of the posters in this very thread are old men ranging between early 30s to late 70s, some not residents in the U.S., and somehow you guys are the arbiters of knowledge on what's best over women's reproductive rights. Seems out of touch to me personally. Men can't even take a flick to the nads with a finger without rolling over in pain, yet you're gonna make a woman push a bowling ball out of her vaginal canal just to appease politicians that can't even practice the legislation they preach and impose on others.

If the sanctity of life was so ******* important, blood and plasma donation would be mandatory for everyone. Organ harvesting after death would be mandatory. Stem cell research that could be obtained on adults even if it affected their quality of life significantly for up to 9 months would be mandatory, for everyone, because life is so sacred. Right?

 

If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant outside of a responsible and stable situation. He puts the woman in a sh** situation where she has to make a sh** choice.