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

Biologically though the fetus is drawing off the resources of the mother which is why pregnancy isn’t without risk and why even now there is significant number of pregnancies that don’t come to term naturally. In this case there is a risk to the women’s health that wouldn’t be present of the fetus wasn’t inside the women’s body.

 

So why are there exceptions (to killing your own child) at all?

 

Self-defense. If your child is running at you with an axe, you can defend yourself. If your child in utero is killing you, you can defend yourself from that as well. If your child is really mouthy and causes you depression, you cannot kill the child, because we don't consider someone impacting your mental health an imminent threat of deadly force. Likewise, if would not be self-defense to kill the child in utero because you are concerned about the impact on your mental health were the child to be born. It all flows from pretty standard self-defense theory.

 

You pretty much sum up the issue with having legislators and lawyers masquerading as doctors. You are not in a courtroom, Roe vs Wade was a sufficient compromise but you and many other right wingers no longer have the ability to do that anymore. It's all social media clicks, general outrage, and of course the deep state. I feel terrible for this poor woman and hope that she can get whatever care she needs and that this ridiculous law gets struck down eventually.

 

It wasn't a sufficient compromise at all to Pro-Life people. Saying that any baby can be killed in the first trimester, no questions asked has resulted in the deaths of millions. You think it was a sufficient compromise because it supported your position.

 

You've won in the short term but will lose in the long run, no way you can't see that. If a woman wants an abortion she will get one no matter what and the lawmakers that passed these draconian laws will be held accountable and voted out for one's that are more willing to reasonably represent their constituents instead of trying to rule over them.

 

A 2-year-old child is not going to attack you with an axe. The notion that a fetus equates to a 2-year-old child is unfounded and certainly not universally accepted, except by religious zealots. However, for the sake of continuing this awesome discussion, let's entertain the idea.

Now, let's delve into broadening the concept of self-defense against the fetus (and a 2-year-old child) —a notion that is entirely unprecedented and not grounded in conventional beliefs. Emotional injuries can inflict greater harm than physical ones. If a pregnancy (or a 2-year-old child) significantly jeopardizes a woman's mental health and poses a serious risk to her overall well-being, applying self-defense principles could be justified to support her decision to terminate the pregnancy (or kill the 2-year-old child). If a fetus (or a 2-year-old child) unintentionally somehow causes physical harm to you (for example, if the 2-year-old child somehow gains access to a gun and is about to unload it on you), applying self-defense principles could be justified to support her decision to terminate the pregnancy (or kill the 2-year-old child). Now, if all of this sounds acceptable to you, congratulations, you are very special.

 

Student of human history, I see.

 

Before Roe was struck down, I kinda had a foot in both camps. Policy since then forces me to pick one polar end or the other. I get the pro-life argument. I'm sympathetic. But I'm not interested in what y'all are selling.

 

I think we all should expect abortion-denied stories from now to the 2024 election. Abortion is a clear winner for the Ds.

The Rs in Texas did not know when to take the win. 99+% of abortions have been prevented. The number of exceptions are so small. On face value, this woman’s case is exceptional. The Rs should have just let this one go.

The Rs in Texas are in effect providing free campaign advertising for the Ds.

 

I don't get to control how people vote. I will not support murdering children in the hopes that fewer people will vote for easier access to murder more children in response. If Pro-Life positions getting results ends up in more people voting for easier access to baby murder, that is on the people voting for the baby murder, not the people opposing it.

Incorrect, there is no precedent for killing someone in self-defense to avoid possible mental health consequences. You can respond to the imminent application of deadly force with deadly force in self-defense. You cannot respond to the application of emotional or mental distress with deadly force in self-defense. No matter how mean someone talks to you and makes you feel bad, no matter how much your boss firing you gives you anxiety, no matter how much your baby crying all night is driving you into a deep depression, you cannot lawfully kill them.

Yes, if a two-year-old child has a gun and is about to shoot you, you can legally defend yourself with deadly force.

Everyone is able to form their own opinions. I am certainly not interested in what the pro-choice people are selling, or the people that are sympathetic to both sides but are willing to accept a million abortions per year.

 

I will give credit to @StupidMoniker who I feel is giving a principled and coherent argument. The argument though is based on the initial premise that life begins at conception so an embryo or fetus is the same as a born child. That is a principled position but this is an issue where there are incompatible principles.

 

An argument based on a false initial premise is fundamentally flawed from its inception.

Life doesn't begin at conception. Never has, never will. You can't take a fertilized egg out of the mother and let it grow in the lab. The fertilization of the egg leads to a replication of cells purely dependent on the Mother (Host) . IT'S NOT A SELF SUSTAINING LIFE FORM and it's birth into the world should never over ride the health and wellbeing of the Mother.

Give health care decision's back to the individual. Having the government make those decisions for people is the least Libertarian thing I've ever heard.

 

There is no precedent for any of this; we are talking in la-la land here with much pretzel-twisted logic. My points stand. Emotional injuries can inflict greater harm than physical ones.

So, are you saying a parent can intentionally kill their 2 years old child who unintentionally harms them and claim self-defense? I don't think that will fly, but okay.

 

50% of zygotes DO NOT attach to the uterine wall. Every day must be a very sad day for @StupidMoniker; every baby / small child he sees is just a reminder that God The Great Baby Killer in the name of His own Will has denied the world of another human being.

 

She’s brave for publicizing this. Republicans want this outlawed as well and will try to lock up whomever transports her.

 

Abbot Paxton et al will likely seek to arrest her when she returns to the state ... since reasons.

Dollars to donuts, if you ask the wives of these fine gentlemen the extent of their husband's knowledge of the female body they be all like ROTFLMAO.

 

Third trimester abortions seem very dubious to defend without a substantial medical cause and that was once the aim and intention of Roe v. Wade before subsequent case law.

I would be open to support a hard reversion to roe v. wade, but I'm not a lawyer nor a historian on how the 3rd trimester prohibitions were watered down over time.

 

It might seem so, but the argument that a fetus is the same as a 2-year-old child is simply illogical. From there, you can pretzel your way to self-defense, which is also not at all persuasive. I doubt any reasonable person would accept a claim of self-defense for killing a 2-year-old child who cannot ever intentionally harm you.