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

You say abortion should be accessible to women. I ask when does that stop? and why does that stop? People who are pro-abortion access have a very difficult time answering it for some reason though.

Now you just throw out ___ weeks.

12 weeks or 24 weeks. What is the basis for those weeks?

 

So read my comments and you can find some answers to those questions. Again, that requires sincerity.

 

Do they? Seems like Roe made that line clear and most people agreed with that line?

 

Not "doctors", but "women and doctors", or the typical health care decision made between patient and doctors. I further said as a society, I thought Roe was the right balance.

I said the question cannot be answered and that anyone think they know is lying. Why did you ask that question? Do you have an answer?

 

You seeing a lot of straight forward answers in here? I'm not.

 

Well, you see, I actually do have an answer.

I don't believe in elective abortion, so that's pretty straightforward.

That covers something like 90% of abortions.

If a pregnancy is jeopardizing the life of the mother then that's more of a trolley car problem and I don't know that I have a problem with either saving the mother or child.

It's incumbent on the pro-abortion access crowd to make up some random date when "life" "begins" and justify it.

Which y'all do a terrible job at.

You don't answer the question.

 

Well, a larger discussion is being had but it's not like in general there was some movement to extend the line. Pro-choice movement has always been about defending Roe. There was never a "Roe doesn't go far enough!" argument in general.

 

So some old white male supreme court justice gets to decide when abortion is legal or not?

I was getting the sense people in here had a problem with old white males in D.C. deciding that.

 

When is the last time SCOTUS has been exclusively white male?

My point is that the argument that pro-choice people don't have a line is wrong, pro-choice people were fine with the standard Roe set, it's Pro-life movement that wanted to get rid of the standard and get rid of abortion entirely.

Pro-choice argument in general is the actual middle ground.

 

I should have been clearer. When I read your questions ("At what point does this "clump of non-sentient cells" gain rights and who decides when that time is?"), the underlining assumption is when life begins (as justification for rights), which I don't think anyone know and that anyone that said they do know is lying to others and to themselves. (I'm aware that both sides claim they do know). The solution without an answer is thus, as I said before, based on morality and trust. You may find that troublesome and unsatisfying, but there are plenty things in life that is unknowable and with full of ambiguity. It is in those instances that to me, trying to bring concrete answers to something that cannot be answered can cause harms to others, as it is doing today in this Florida's case.

In case you ask me again - I cannot answer a question that I have no answer to. But I did propose a solution.

With that clarification, do you have an answer to when life begins? I suspect you believe it to be at conception.

 

Justice Harry Blackmun was an old white man when he wrote the opinion in Roe vs. Wade.

IIRC the Roe supreme court was 8 old white men and 1 old black man.

So, essentially, those who were deciding female bodily autonomy in Roe vs. Wade... were a bunch of old white men + Thurgood Marshall.

 

Let's hypothetically say we never came up with a determined amount of months (which we already did with Roe, so ya I guess we'll just ignore that)

Does that imply a complete ban at any stage is the answer?

My question to you is if you yourself cannot determine the exact month or date a embryo becomes sentiment does that mean you value the entity during the time frame where you are certain there is no sentience(first six weeks is an obvious time frame where you and I can agree) over the sentient being in the woman?

 

No, it isn't.

Someone can be pro-choice and not know exactly where you draw the line.

it is similar to favoring gun-control or any number of other policy opinions on both sides of the aisle.

 

Did he write an opinion and give an arbitrary time or did he base it on experts?

A judge writing an opinion doesn't mean the science that backs the opinion is coming from the judge. A subject matter expert in a court trial is a singular witness. A judge can write a legal opinion and use expert testimony to base said legal opinion.


Really weird argument you are making here.

 

Certainly life begins at conception. Is that not scientifically shown?

 

But a line must be drawn.

 

Of course not. And I will state this without menace - you lied to yourself and to others.

 

Elaborate on "life".

In science a single celled organism is living. Something like a virus isn't as it's nothing more than a protein structure with some rna or dna strands in them. But something like a single celled bacteria is living according to scientific consensus.

So obviously when you are referring to "life" you are referring to something more than just the mere fact that an organism is classified as "living".

 

He could have listened to any number of sources but he, along with his colleagues, still made the decision.

So, some old white men + Thurgood Marshall were the ones who made the decision regarding female bodily autonomy.

 

I honestly don't care who wrote the opinion, whether they were old white dudes or 6 super models from Brazil, it's irrelevant. I don't have the opinion that old white dudes are inherently bad therefore I'm not going to get into an argument about how relevant it is that an old white dude wrote the opinion. Old white dudes, just like old dudes of any race, have and can do great things that I agree with. So what that an old white dude wrote it?

My point is that the pro-choice side wasn't the side taking things further, they were more than fine with the standard, defended that standard. The pro-choice argument was never that a woman should be able to abort an 8 month pregnancy because she simply wants to because Roe was against that.

Your side is the one that wants to take things further and remove what has been the standard.