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

Your mother must be proud, is she a 99er also?

 

Probably a pro choice movie in the day

 

Which party was supposed to be anti science again?

 

Given the GOP's idea of science is semantics, it's pretty clear that they are not only anti-science, but they don't really understand what it is.

 

Is that a human? Is it inside a man or a woman?

 

Again, semantics vs science - in regards to your original post.

 

"I'm not a biologist"

 

Alright you got us there

 

The definition of what it is to be human is not a scientific one. Her error is clearly semantics vs science. Let's say she is using human to be mean human being. There's no scientific consensus that says a fetus is a person or a human being as there isn't possible to apply a methodology to determine that which is free from ultimately a belief system. The purpose of science isn't to answer religious or philosophical questions. It's to create a model that accurately describes how things work and predicts it with repeatable results. It's not a categorization system even within biology.

 

@bobrek @Sweet Lou 4 2
So this was like a total recall of
Roe vs wade ?

@Jontro

cohagen!

 

If we are looking at the Constitution, as originally written, white men. The Constitution was written for and by white men. Women were not even mentioned and had no rights.

 

it's a healthy thing that politicians on both sides will now be compelled to offer actual policy positions on abortion (Democrats will need to offer a position on partial birth abortions, and Republicans will need to offer a position on rape/health exceptions)

 

Except that even prior to this ruling there were already laws on the books regarding "partial birth abortions" and late term abortions. What this ruling does and what some states trigger laws already do isn't address just those cases but all abortions.

 

I don't know where Thomas lives but he works in the Federal territory of DC which doesn't have statehood as we well know. The argument that this is just a matter for the states has already been shown hollow when several prominent Republicans have said they will push for a national abortion ban which this ruling does allow.

If Thomas does believe that this ruling does open up reexamination and possible overturning of many non-enumerated rights that would include marriage, which isn't in the Constutition. If it follows along with this ruling there would be nothing to restrict a national ban on marriage of anysort, but even if it is done state by state that would mean that Thomas' marriage would be invalid in different states. Therefore any property and familial rights that the Thomas might have would be invalid if they happen to travel to one of those states.

 

Maybe Thomas wants to be single? Ask Anita Hill.

 

One time I got sent a video by an Uncle and didn't know what it was. I was following a needle through what looked like a tube. Then it happened... I saw what was clearly a small baby still in the womb and that needle I was following started carving that baby up. The baby started to jerk in pain obviously until it was killed. I'm still upset to this day my Uncle sent me that with NO WARNING. I'm completely against abortion...

BUT it is the woman's right to choose, especially in the case of rape. How the **** can states who are banning abortion not at least keep those clauses in there? That's just ridiculous to me. On top of all the other stuff going on, with high inflation, soaring gas prices, wage stagnation, etc., to add this on top of it all... crazy times

 

And Republican politicians are on the other end of the spectrum. They’ll preach at churches about being pro-life in the morning, then pay for their mistresses abortion at nights.