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

Roe v. Wade safeguards the right to an abortion until the fetus is viable, after which restrictions are permitted with exception for health. This compromise was generally accepted as a good one.

Now that people have lost that right, and we observe the strict measures taken by conservative-leaning states, individuals are wanting the reinstatement of that right (through State laws). Support for abortion, even in the later stages, has increased across all demographic and political groups since Roe was overturned, a direct result of people realizing the harms inflicted on women and families by these strict abortion laws.

Before Roe was overturned, the third-trimester prohibitions were not progressively relaxed in conservative states; in fact, they became increasingly more stringent.

 

Good for her. I'm happy she told the lawmakers of Texas to go get ****ed.

 

You might be joking but it's no joke. Remember when Republicans were upset about an ad that showed a cop arresting a girl for traveling out of state for an abortion? Well, Republicans have already passed "abortion travel ban". I expect to see more pretzel-logic to completely ban travel for abortion and a push for a federal ban.

 

Missouri Republican lawmakers are pushing a pair of bills that would allow for women to be charged with murder for getting an abortion in the state.

The proposed legislation would give fetuses the same rights as human beings, which would allow for criminal charges to be filed against anyone who gets an abortion, helps someone get an abortion or provides abortion care in the state, which implemented a near-total ban on the procedure after last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
…

 

The Texas supreme court just ruled this immediately after Ms. Cox traveled out of state to receive the necessary medical care? WTF is wrong with them?

 

Beto is correct...

 

Your definition of life is not scientifically accurate. Life does in fact begin at conception. A unique human being is undergoing the processes of growth, metabolism, and organization. Undergoing biological processes are what differentiate organic living organisms from inanimate objects. It is especially apparent that life has begun at conception because it is clear that the end result of an abortion is the termination of that life. You have injected the additional qualifier of self-sustaining and attached it to life and somehow not realized that this modifier clearly changes what is being described. A human zygote is not a zebra life either, but that doesn't make it not a life, it make it not a zebra.

The law doesn't recognize emotional injuries as meeting the definition of great bodily injury or death. The law does specifically contemplate emotional injuries, so it isn't that we cannot deal with them at law (see the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress), but we do not consider an emotional harm something from which you can protect yourself with force. You cannot stab your boyfriend if he is about to break up with you, but you can if he is about to shoot you.

Yes, you are not required to allow a two-year-old to shoot and kill you. So far as I am aware, there is no age or intent requirement with regard to the incoming deadly force that you are allowed to respond to with deadly force.

Sometimes things just don't work out. Sometimes women miscarry much later in their pregnancy and it can be devastating. At least if the zygote doesn't attach it is likely the mother will be blissfully unaware of that which she has lost. The fact that people die naturally does not excuse intentionally killing them though. People die of heart attacks, but I can't go around injecting people with massive doses of potassium to induce heart attacks.

 

@Commodore is not a conservative make no mistake. Not only does he want government in his backyard, he wants the government's reach to be far enough to potentially kill a mother for no reason. (this is not a viable fetus)

Disgusting. Luckily neo-cons aka fake conervatives like him are being exposed and tossed out.

 

life does not begin at conception. there are countless medical examples that would fit this (conception) mold, such as molar pregnancies and choriocarcinomas also begin with a zygote (what you refer to as beginning at conception). I respect the pro life crowd and after a certain point I'm completely against abortions unless to protect the mother's life, but making the aforementioned argument is absolutely silly from any objective and empirical point of view.

If you are resting on the assumption that preventing a zygote from implanting, further multiplying, is killing a baby.. you can't stop there. There are billions of zygotes doing this every day for natural reasons for whatever reason, unable to further multiply or failure implant in the uterus (maybe you had alcohol or your otherwise daily medications had an unintended side effect??) . You should be championing the mitigation of this loss (that again..occurs constantly without knowing) and advocating for conditions that provide an environment favorable for implantation, --> blastocyst. Make every woman of child bearing age be a constant baby factory with optimal conditions to avoid said loss of "life"

I'm not trying to be rude here, but the world goes on about the conception BS like its not blatantly r****ded in every sense to avoid hurting the hardcore evangelical fee fees

The reason there are advancements in IVF, cancer care etc rests on the above principles so ignoring it is rather convenient)

 

The fact that something can go wrong doesn't negate the fact that life begins at conception. You can develop auto-immune diseases, but it is still correct to say that white blood cells are used to fight infection. The fact that there is a possibility of something going wrong doesn't negate the normal state of affairs. In a healthy human reproduction, life begins when a sperm cell combines with an egg cell to form a new human being. There can be a bunch of issues that prevent that process from reaching the conclusion of a healthy baby being born, but that is when it starts.

This doesn't follow at all. Shooting someone in the head with a shotgun is murder, but we are not required to ban shotguns, make everyone wear helmets at all times, and otherwise take every possible precaution to prevent people from dying from being shot in the head with a shotgun. Everyone just continues living their daily lives and we find it sufficient to prevent death by shotgun decapitation by outlawing murder.

IVF literally starts with creating a zygote, that is when you have created a new human life. The zygote is then implanted. You aren't creating the life when you implant it or some nebulous later time. Evangelicalism also has no bearing on it. The actual definition of life is satisfied when conception occurs.

 

You ignored the premise you started with and again, you are wrong with your example. It’s not analogous but I’ll still give it to you and prove why you’re wrong even if that was the case. When we develop auto-immunity we don’t throw our hands up and say *welp*, we push the boundaries towards medications that blunt all that to the effect of serious side effects including but not limited to TB and secondary malignancies to avoid said autoimmunity. Sometimes the benefit is along the lines of QOL at the risk of the above so again, we don’t follow the natural course because we acknowledge said —mistake—in our biology and correct course.

now going back to the main fallacy.

if you think life begins at conception (I will too for a second) you can very easily bring those unintended deaths to months of cultivation by preparing mothers as baby factories. We do this for IVF. You can’t simply state that only the voluntary intervention of halting your “life begins at conception” is wrong and deems halting—while completely ignore the involuntary as not qualifying. It’s a logical fallacy. If you are sticking your stance which I am giving to you, it’s appalling you would stand for the deaths of billions of babies /lives every day. Heck , it could be as easy as stopping any child bearing woman that is sexually activr from alcohol or making them take a folic acid supplement. You would be saving more “lives” in that scenario while giving you your premise.

even if I gave you all that, with de differentiation of stem cells, the simple stance that “cross over” the real event you deem as conception is nothing more than a recombination of DNA , and going off that point that a recombination of nucleotides is the crux of “life” and ignoring the trillions of seeds we blow into our Kleenexes every month as not being sub dividends of that “life” —is just infinitely too many holes. It’s absolutely ridiculous and akin to flying someone into space and still believing the earth is flat.

I’ll go one step further after flying you into space and going around the earth at various altitudes to prove my point. Our entire metric of “life / brain death” is separate from the spontaneity of organs that exist in the mentioned vacuum of what we believe to be life ( something a zygote is far from possessing and trillions of orders away from). We don’t hook up a medulla (part of brain stem that dictates vital functions) to a pair of lungs, a heart and vessels and deem that as life. The religious premise you speak of is a violiation of numerous biological principles my friend.

 

The fact that people take steps to cure or mitigate disease is beside the point. The premise is that there are natural processes, sometimes those processes go awry, but the fact that they sometimes go awry doesn't invalidate the baseline, it just means things can go wrong. If you can intervene when something goes wrong to put things back on the right track, great.

You have yet to identify a fallacy.

You can very easily eliminate deaths from shotguns by eliminating shotguns and locking everyone in their homes. You can very easily eliminate deaths from drunk driving by eliminating alcohol and cars. We don't do these things because they are an infringement on people's freedoms for some possible net benefit. What we take actions against are the intentional harms caused to others. Miscarriages happen and no one is calling for the unfortunate people who suffer a miscarriage to be punished. There is a difference between someone having a heart attack and someone being stabbed in the chest. There is a difference between someone's baby not implanting in the uterus and someone sucking it out with a vacuum. Ironically, you are the one presenting a fallacy (reductio ad absurdum), because you don't want to engage with the actual issue, that abortions are the termination of a living human being.

Thinking a human zygote is alive is the same as the earth is flat now? That a sperm on it's own is the same as a person? You are ridiculous.

We don't do that at all, so there is no need to call it anything. A baby isn't some Frankenstein's monster collection of organs attached to part of a brain, it is just one stage along the chain of development to an adult.

I have made no reference to religion. You bring it up to dismiss the real issues you don't want to deal with. There is a reason you cannot discuss what is actually happening and instead have to talk about cancers and molar pregnancies, neither of which meet the criteria I originally cited (which is a complete new human dna gestating into a human being).

 

it absolutely invalidates your point. Getting a pneumonia is also a natural process. Appendicitis is too. We intervene because we acknowledge that to better people we need to intervene.

Logically, we can say not intervening is wrong (I’m sure you don’t disagree, just look at malpractice cases). The aforementioned is a basic tenant in medicine.

if you think life begins at conception, then provide that zygote with all the tools to successfully implant, otherwise you are letting that life die billions of times a day. You still haven’t countered this point to be honest, and to be blunt..you’re not going to because you are arguing against science and trying to profit on both sides of the argument.

we agree a 2 year old child is alive. A 1 month old baby is alive. A 34 week fetus…is alive. Not providing adequate care, is malpractice and can be argued as negligence if it leads to poor health outcomes (upto death).

if you are arguing that something is alive and aborting a zygote is immoral you have to apply similar standards that you are consistently applying to what you think constitutes life. You will save far more zygotes (and you that’s not up for debate either, a large number of zygotes are lost due to preventable factors). Ban alcohol and certain medications in child bearing women.

again, you are arguing that life begins at conception and safeguarding said life is important. You must be consistent, by your own definitions a zygote is life, a 34week fetus is life, a 2 year old is life

the reason I’m bringing cancer (Choriocarcinlmas) and molar pregnancies here is because BOTH START AS A ZYGOTE. They both have new human DNA by the metrics of cross over. Yet they still don’t have “life that begins at conception” attribute. I’m not doing it to mess around. Maybe it’s obvious to me and I should have explained that earlier point but nonetheless The holes in your argument are too numerous to account and defy basic science brother. I have provided concrete examples and analogies you can look up in peer reviewed journals without any certainty. Choriocarcinomas start as zygotes . Molar pregnancies start as zygotes. They never had life. They underwent conception/crossover. They never had life.

you aren’t reading what I said or perhaps I should have strung it together clearer since a lot of this is obvious to anyone that understands this process very well

 

It isn't and never has been about pro-life movement. Its a pro-control movement and @StupidMoniker is just another one of those pro-birth GOP cucks who has fallen prey to the religiously based "life begins at conception" myths. To them Women are only baby factories to produce good little workers for the unregulated capitalist military industrial complex. Heath and education be damned. Every lump of reproducing cells must be carried to full term regardless of any threat to the mothers health, or the viability of the child's life outside the womb. Wont be long before they REQUIRE every woman to give birth to at least one kid they can feed to the machine.

 

I know it doesn't today, but we aren't talking about today (as I said, we are talking about la la land).

Today, the law doesn't recognize a zygote or fetus as the same as a 2-year-old child, which is your premise to start with 'self-defense' as an exception to abortion. You can't go down a theoretical path and then only stick to current law, as it completely invalidates your premise, and yet you are doing it here.

 

The belief that life begins at conception, when taken to its logical conclusion, implies that a woman should be charged with involuntary manslaughter or murder for doing something harmful to a developing 'life,' even without awareness of pregnancy. If someone holds this belief wholeheartedly, it becomes worrisome when they acquire political power. I believe we see such individuals in states like TX and MO, among other very conservative states.

 

But I never said not to intervene to save a life. You are arguing against a straw man.

I have countered that point, by showing you how we don't mandate affirmative risk reduction at the expense of freedom in thousands of other situations, of which I provided several examples.

Negligence is defined as not meeting the standard of care that is provided by the average reasonable person. You are making the inappropriate extrapolation that a woman not doing everything possible to become (in your words) a baby factory is the standard of care provided by an average reasonable person. It is not. Just like everyone is not required to wear body armor 24/7, remain in the home, never travel more than 5 mph, or any of a million other things that would result in fewer deaths.

I am applying the same standards. It is illegal to intentionally kill someone. It is not illegal not to do everything possible to create the best possible chance of everyone on earth living. It is you who is trying to impose stricter standards on me than apply in every other facet of life.

Molar pregnancies do not have an ordinary new human DNA blueprint, they either have only the contribution of the father that has been doubled or they have wildly abnormal DNA. Choriocarcinomas are cancer. Regardless, they are non-viable and highly dangerous to the mother, so they can be taken care of under a self-defense theory. It doesn't matter at all to the outcome. It also doesn't detract from the calculus of restricting the intentional destruction of an actual person, not a clump of cancer cells. So, call them a life or not, it doesn't matter because it is not a person.

I read it, it is all just entirely irrelevant. No, cancer is not a person. Yes, a human zygote is a person. Yes, you can get rid of cancer. No, you cannot intentionally kill people without justification.

It doesn't invalidate the premise at all. The principles are exactly the same. The law inconsistently treats the unborn as people. Under no circumstance does the law treat emotion injury as something from which you can protect yourself with deadly force. There is no logic in what you are saying beyond, "I want this so make it this." The law in fact does recognize self-defense now as an exception to abortion restrictions. That is what an exception to save the life of the mother is.

 

I’ll repeat again.

you think a fertilized egg or a zygote constitutes life. I don’t.

As with other forms of human life, a 34week old fetus, a 2 year child and an adult, you would like to safeguard said life.

whether that life is lost through voluntary action (abortion, or “murder” like you guys like to say ex @Commodore) or involuntary (lack of care, ex failure to take folic acid, abstaining from Alcohol) makes no difference in said loss of life. That life is lost and you would like for it not to be lost, right?

If voluntary loss of that life aka abortion of a zygot is wrong in your eyes, so should the involuntary loss of life. Again life that begins at conception …your words.

not advocating for the latter is understandable because science and common sense will tell you a ferilized egg is not life (we freeze them all the time and implant them later, we can’t seem to do that with other forms of “life” I wonder why right?). You think it is life, so advocate for safeguarding a zygote and providing it the tools to implant and develop …it’s extremely doable and takes place in interventions all the time.

You can’t because it sounds silly. Turning women into baby factories for a fertilized egg is stupid, because deep down in a way only logical reasoning can tease out, even you don’t believe life begins at conception


I told you, you aren’t going to win that specific battle. I can’t say the same for other pro life stances, but life beginning at conception is factually incorrect in every empirical and objective metric we have available to us


Regarding the molar preg (no not all molar pregnancy is in error in just sperm multiplication or vice versa) and gestational choriocarcinoma.. you still aren’t getting the point. “Cancer is not a person” , jeez I wonder why we treat people for it all the time. Look at the process, the specific fertilized egg and precursor don’t just decide they are turning into either before they meet. By the way, these are just cited 1-2 examples...there is a whole topic on this with respect to gestational trophoblastic disease

similar to the typos in this post, errors happen afterwards that cause it to develop as such.

By taking the stance you do that life begins at conception you think the baby or life ultimately turns into a molar pregnancy or choriocarcinoma …which is r****ded (no pun intended), because it never constituted life in the first place.

brother im going to say this one last time, you are AGREEING with my stance on all of this. I agree a choriocarcinoma and molar pregnancy is not a baby or fetus….because the zygot (aka what you call life at conception) isn’t ****ing “life”. You have agreed with me every step of the way here and you are still trying to tell me life begins at conception

 

@StupidMoniker we agree on the factual stances and logic there, why are you still trying to argue that life begins at conception? You don’t agree on the first stance because in your eyes deep down, a zygote isn’t “life”

it isn’t a 34 week fetus we take emergency interventions to safe guard, even putting the mothers life at risk.

it sometimes turns into a molar pregnancy and gestational choriocarcinoma (neither which constitutes having life because said life never began at the zygote). These are hard facts and principles that take place in medical care all over the world every day