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

What if that woman wants to have sex?

So you are saying you are against sex where the participants don't want to have a kid. Because it may lead to an abortion and you are against abortion?

 

very entertaining piece about this tweet:




THOUGHTS FROM THE AMMO LINE
The bad news is that the ammo line has grown longer in the Age of Biden. The good news is that it has given Ammo Grrrll the time to give us a bonus holiday edition of her thoughts from the line. Attending to JANE’S VAGINA, er, AK-47, she writes . . .

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/07/thoughts-from-the-ammo-line-435.php

excerpt:

To be fair to Jane’s metaphor, LIKE the unkempt vagina, the AK47 is a nasty weapon, its 7.62 rounds often tumbling on impact, creating horrific wounds. It was invented by Mr. Kalashnikov, a wounded WW2 vet, to be simple enough for illiterate Russian peasants to use against Nazis. Its name is derived from the fact that it debuted in 1947. It is also cheap to produce, running from just $30 to around $150 in Third World countries, where it is a favorite of thugs, cartels and general miscreants.

As far as its “not being subject to regulation or restriction,” Heaven only knows what Jane is talking about. It has previously been banned and/or restricted in many states. In California, where I believe Jane has at least one home, and plies her trade as a mediocre actress, a weapon that holds 30 rounds would be illegal, although it remains to be seen whether the newest SCOTUS ruling may alter that. We have been told by many prominent politicians and celebrities that they can just defy gun rulings like they do immigration law, or even abolish the Supreme Court.

As for “calling” a vagina an AK-47, the great dead white male Abraham Lincoln cut to the heart of the issue with his response to the question of a boy asking how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg. The answer is four, not five. It doesn’t matter what you call it, a tail is NOT a leg.
​

more at the link

 

That is very simplistic thinking. Not every child born is going to be adopted. That doens't happen now and is very unlikely even if there are far less abortions. This belief is based upon that every child born will be desirable. Unfortunately we know that not every child born will not be given that they may have congenital defects and also given how their mother took care of themselves might have other. Children born from alcoholic mothers are very likely to have fetal alcoh syndrome. If adoptive parents were to know that the child they were getting was from a troubled family history they are likely to not adopt. I know this as from relatives who were adopting from the PRC the group they went with some of the parents did turn down children when they found out that either the children had developmental difficulties and / or from backgounds with things like substance abuse.

So what happens to those babies who weren't adopted? My bet is that they end up going to foster care and get stuck in that cycle.

 

Again you're the one who added your own assumptions to the scenario you raised. Leaving that aside though it sounds like you agree with my overall point that people who otherwise thought they had a loving and committed relationship can be lied to and abandoned with things go wrong.
Therefore is it their responsiblity for being lied to and decieved?

That is the underlying assumption if you assume that adoption is the solution to abortion.

It doesn't but it makes it very unlikely that people will want to adopt that child.

I actually support limits on abortion and have stated that idealy no abortions should happen. That said I get the feeling that you are more anti-abortion than I am so would you still accept then 12% of abortions per year which would still be likely abortions in the 100K figure per year for the US?

Have you adopted or do you know anyone closely who has? I know that adoptive parents have turned down developmentally disabled children for adoption. As someone who used to volunteer with developmentally disabled I know from direct expect experience that there are developmentally disabled who were given up by their parents and never adopted.

And again this is the most callous part of this argument. Honestly that you even considered thinking of children in terms of Teslas and Nissan Leafs is disturbing and in many ways encapsulates the Conservartive view on the issue.

People want babies so we should make sure that pregnancies are brought to term so there are more babies. After that though if they are abandoned by their familes no one really wants them.

Let me ask you these questions but anyone else is free to answer:
1. Do you believe every baby put up for adoption is adopted?
2. What happens to a baby who isn't adopted?

Congratulations! You win ONE DATA POINT!

 

Do I agree that people can lie? Yes. No one has ever said people are incapable of lying.

Your responsibility for being lied to depends on your level of trust in unverified information, the credibility of the person you are listening to (or at least what you know of their credibility), how likely what they are saying could be true, and probably other factors I haven't thought of. If you got an email from a stranger that said he was the lawyer for a Nigerian prince and that he wanted your bank account information to transfer to you $200,000,000, but you need to send $25,000 for processing fees, it is partially on you if you send them the money. Obviously, they are also at fault for scamming you.

That doesn't follow at all. A baby born from a one night stand is no less desirable for adoption than one born from a stable and loving relationship. In fact, the former is much more likely to be put up for adoption than the latter. It is absolute nonsense to say that is an implicit assumption.

In what way? How would the adoptive parents even know the mother was an addict or abuse victim? Why would they care?

No, which is why I don't bring up only healthy babies when talking about opposition to abortion. Fetal anomalies can also cover a whole range of issues, and it isn't clear from the polling what is meant by the term. Pro-choicers talk about rape, incest, non-viable children, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. because they are obfuscating. The vast majority of babies aborted are normal, healthy babies conceived through consensual sex. They want to have a policy allowing termination of the 88%, but focus the rhetoric on the much smaller minorities because it is harder to sell abortion of healthy babies conceived through consensual sexual encounters.

Yes.

I know that adoptive parents have adopted developmentally disabled children. No one said every adoptive couple is willing to adopt every child.

It is an analogy to demonstrate that infants are more desirable to potential adoptive parents than older children.

No. Killing babies is bad, so we should make sure that pregnancies are brought to term. As a result of that, there will be unwanted babies, but lucky us, there are millions of couples looking to adopt babies, so they will have a happy home to go into.

I think it is rarely accurate to say in every case of X, Y happens. I know there is an unmet demand for infants.

Most babies that aren't adopted are raised by their parent(s). Assuming you meant babies that were actually put up for adoption and abandoned by their parents though, they would become a ward of the state.

 

And? I didn't bring up late term abortions... someone else brought up rape/incest because they don't want to talk about responsibility.... because they can't.... they want to move the target. People don't actually want to address what I've been talking about... they literally bring up every topic under the abortion sun.

Women aren't a monolith. I'm confident the majority would agree with me that it's best practices to use the sexual faculties in a responsible environment and they would love to. Unfortunately they feel a lot of pressure from men not to and they give in and it quite frequently results in suffering. 1. Men should do better and 2. Women shouldn't give in to men.

No, actually, I don't. I don't expect women to have a crystal ball. Women should use a process to make a man prove he is worthy. Women should make a man wait, discern if he is an appropriate life partner, examine his family, his education, his temperment, his work history and then discern if marriage is a good idea. Once they've done that, they get their families together and they have a wedding where they swear vows, usually before God, as most people believe in that, of fidelity to each other, then they exercise their sexual faculties, and at that point, the exercise of the sexual faculties would no longer be "irresponsible" but something good and responsible. Because, if anything "accidental" happened, that's an ok environment for an "accident" to happen and the child can be born and brought into a healthy family. Doesn't that sound lovely?

Then let them go. Women should hold men to a higher standard. Men should also be better. It would be better for everyone.

I'm happy to chastise men and their approach to sex. That doesn't mean women have no responsibility in how they exercise their sexual faculties as well.

Yea? I suspect if I talk to a lot of women today they would tell me my philosophy towards dating and sexuality is ideal. Cherish, honor and put the good of the woman before yourself, don't push for sex, heck, even wait until marriage. Those are things that sound pretty good to a lot of women. The modern hook up culture has been an absolute disaster for women, I'm sure they'd tell you.

 

Responsibility is another matter. Yes, people can be irresponsible and make mistakes. Of course, we should teach young people to be responsible. No one is objecting to that. Whether abstinence-only education is more effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies than comprehensive sex education is a matter of debate. Whichever side one lands in that debate, teaching people to be responsible to avoid unwanted pregnancies is obviously in their interests. But forcing women to bear children against their will is just as obviously not in their interests. Bottom line -- what's in women's best interests has nothing to do with your position, so there's really no need for you to even go there when arguing for people to be more sexually responsible.

 

Actually, I've received a lot of push back on the notion. People disagree on what constitutes responsible use of the sexual faculties. Some would tell you as long as their 17 y/o bf told you "don't worry bby I'll take care of you" - that, then, any sexual activity is perfectly responsible. Which is asinine.

 

I feel it's important to remember with any conversation around abortion that the vast majority of them are early term abortions.

The question isn't about whether women agree that it is safe to have sex in a responsible environment, everyone agrees with that. That's not what anyone is arguing against.

It sounds like a magical fairytale world that doesn't exist and it seems to ignore that women are usually A LOT pickier with who they have sex with than men are.

Women do all this and still get with men that they break up with. Relationships are extremely messy things, your argument acts like they are a monolith. Like literally what, 50% of marriages end in divorce/separation, that's an insanely high amount. Now how many of those are justified break ups? That's another question you'd have to look into.

The whole idea that oh you can only have sex when you are so certain you won't break up with the person is a fairy tale idea. No one that's heavy in a relationship thinks they will break up. People usually do not start relationships with the intention to break up years later.

It's like teams drafting top 5 all think the guy they got will be a franchise player. Teams don't draft a guy #2 with the intention of trading him to the Lakers 6 years from now. Women usually do not date and have sex with men they plan on breaking up with. There might be some, sure, some women have high libidos and can manipulate people for sex too, but we're not talking about dishonest actors here.

Would it? You seem to have it all figured out for everyone.

Well you just said above that women often feel pressured to have sex, I agree with that notion because as I mentioned, women will have sex just to please their man. Even though women are able to get more pleasure from sex the honest truth is most guys aren't able to take their woman to that level and a lot of women will do it because they feel it is important in their relationship with that person...and it is, and then the very real reality of it is if he isn't getting sex from his wife or girlfriend he is most likely getting it elsewhere because we are biologically driven to spread our seed. Just the way it is.

So, if you feel women are more pressured to do it then it would seem your main focus would be to stop the men on pressuring them for it. I think most people agree that women are a lot better at controlling sexual urges than men are after all so you're preaching to the choir telling women to hold off on sex.

Nope. You're wrong.

In fact, it's not even popular AMONG CHRISTIANS lol.

A majority of Christians (57%) say sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship is sometimes or always acceptable. That includes 67% of mainline Protestants, 64% of Catholics, 57% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition and 46% of evangelical Protestants.

Eight-in-ten religiously unaffiliated Americans (79%) say sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship is sometimes or always acceptable.

Your ideals here on sex before marriage are just generally unpopular. It's fine for you to believe them, 100% cool, but don't pretend that a majority of people agree with it.

Hook up culture isn't what people are arguing over, one night stands, stuff like that, can definitely be irresponsible IF the parties engaging aren't wearing protection. I'm not sure you agree with that, you seem to be against any casual sex, but hook ups, casual sex, that can definitely be irresponsible as it can lead to STDs and pregnancies...but contraception can be 99% effective if done right, therefore I wouldn't say it is any more irresponsible than eating cheeseburgers daily or something.

I think the point most people are making is that people do not start relationships lightly. Most people do not start relationships to break up, outside of terrible people, players, F___ boys, whatever you want to call people that manipulate others for sex, but we're not talking about those people. We're talking about women who went into a relationship and had no reason to believe there would be a break up, who gave herself to a man only to break up with that person later...

Because that actually happens. A lot. As mentioned, 50% of marriages do not end well.

 

As long as one is risking an unwanted pregnancy, they aren't being perfectly responsible. I agree. At the same time, if you know a young person under your care is likely to be sexually active even if you preach abstinence, and you are unwilling to teach them about safe sex, then I think you are also being irresponsible.

There is some evidence that abstinence-only education, to the exclusion of comprehensive sex education, is not effective at reducing teen pregnancy:

Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S | PLOS ONE

 

15% of women who obtain abortions in the United States are married women. Should they (a married couple) have the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy?

Also, the divorce rate is almost 50% in the U.S. Marriages fail and children are raised in "broken" homes. This can cause familial suffering as well. Do you chastice couples who are divorced? In la-la utopia land, there would be no divorce. Everybody would be in happy, committed relationships until death do they part, nobody would make mistakes or have accidents, everybody would be faithful and committed and "exercise their sexual faculties" with extreme responsibility.

But, we are way past that. And you sound like a broken record reciting the same basic premise over and over. We get it. People should wait until they're married to exercise their faculties. That is good advice. Now can we please move on from this simplistic attitude and address Women"s Rights for those who may have made a bad decision, had an accident, were raped, have a medical emergency and, including the 15% of married women who choose to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason they may have?

 

I'd like to know how many of you supporting this law would force your 10 year old rape survivor daughter to carry the rapist's offspring and put her body and mind through even more trauma. If you would, then I feel so sorry for your daughters.

One day, if the GOP gets it's way, victims like that poor 10 year old rape victim denied abortion in Ohio won't only have to travel to another state, they will have to do it in another country.

 

Yes there is such a thing as healthy suspicion but what we are talkign about is assigning responsibility in a situation where someone is in a seeming and other wise loving and committed relationship which by definition would mean they are fully trusting them. In such a situation where one party has abandoned the other party I would go say the other party was responsible when they had no knowledge that their partner was going to abandon them.

The answer we've heard is that if then they should wait until marriage yet we know that many marriages fall apart and husbands leave wives. That said only women can get pregnant. It seems misogynistic to be saying the woman is responsble.

It is the assumption again if you believe that every baby born and put up for adoption would be adopted. From the answers below you recognize that isn't the case so adoption alone most likely won't make up for all situations where a child might be aborted. My feeling is that if abortion were to be completely banned and we suddently saw all of those new children that a even smaller percentage of children put of adoption would be adopted.

An addict and an abuse victim is likely to pass on and / or not take the best prenatal care leading more likely to an abnormality. I've seen a couple reject a potential adoption based on the background of the mother.

Yet from the answers below you agree that not all babies might be adopted. Further you put up the proposal regarding abortions for fetal abnormalities that you have soundly rejected so I find it interesting that you accused me of "because if not, this is not really the basis of your argument, you are trying to deflect."

Yes there are parents who do adopt developmentally disabled children but your answer already acknowledges that there are ones who don't.

That is a dodge but you've already acknowledged that not all babies are adopted.

Don't wards of the states end up being foster children?

I understand you have a firm belief against abortion. I'm not going to argue about when life begins or the rights of the unborn. I am pointing out and your answers add to it that adoption alone will not solve abortion. Taking just what you have written here you are acknowledging that even currently with a demand for babies there still is a certain percent of babies not adopted. That there are certain percent of babies with fetal abnormalities that likely will make them harder to adopt. In a situation without abortion those numbers are to rise much greater.

Granted you refect the fetal abnormalities argument which you can but that strikes me as ideological position when fetal abnormalities such as fetal alcohol syndrome is a fact. This is why I will state again that these type of absolutist positions are simplistic and will not actually reduce abortions. Positions that ignore arguments to health of fetus and health of the mother (which often are very interrelated) will just make abortions more dangerous.

 

A situation like this happened in Ireland and is why the Irish overturned their abortion ban. Given how ham handed some of the bans are already in the several states this very well could happen here and happen soon.

 

This is why is so ridiculous to have these bans and force women to abide by the values of @HTM or a @StupidMoniker

The gov't should not be imposing the values of the minority onto the majority - we don't live in a nanny state afterall. We need to trust women to make the right decision instead of policing sex and pregnancy because their preacher told them this was the way.

 

Okay. This really seems to go more to your conversation with HTM than anything I have said.

I think there are tons of precautions people can take. Abstinence is one, but there is sterilization, layered birth control, highly effective individual birth control methods, and adoption in the even all else fails. I don't see any need for abortion when the mother will not die.

I made no such assumption. Most infants put up for adoption are adopted, because there is a queue a mile long to adopt infants. Some small percentage of infants may not be adopted and instead become wards of the state. So? Is the alternative, that they be killed, somehow superior to that? I think not.

People have been having babies for hundreds of thousands of years without taking the best prenatal care. Most of the time, the kid comes out fine, even from addicts and abuse victims.

The difference is that some kids not getting adopted doesn't change my argument. I don't have to focus only on the kids that get adopted, because not killing kids is a good thing, even if some of them go into the foster system.

The ones that don't can adopt the hundreds of thousands of healthy children. The existence of some adoptive parents that won't take developmentally disabled kids doesn't mean no one will.

It isn't a dodge, you are just pushing a ridiculous standard. If I can't guarantee that every kid will be adopted, it is not a workable system? What if all but one kid gets adopted? All but 10? What is the cutoff for it being an acceptable number?

Yes.

I don't agree that a solution not being perfect means that it is not good enough to implement. Currently there are hundreds of thousands of children aborted every year (about 900,000 in 2020). About 12% of those were claimed to be for fetal abnormalities. That could be anything, but lets say all of them are down syndrome or FAS or whatever you think is going to cause adoption problems. Let's also assume that not a single family is willing to adopt one of those babies (even though we know that people adopt kids with developmental disabilities). So that means just be eliminating abortion we could have 792,000 healthy babies placed with adoptive parents, and 108,000 babies placed in foster care. That is in opposition to 900,000 dead babies. I see that as an absolute win.

 

It is freaking absurd to think that abortion is a constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court made the absolute right call on this -- legally any other position is unjustifiable. They did not ban abortion. At all. They sent the issue back to the states to decide, which is proper because abortions should not be handled at the federal level. Murder is almost always prosecuted at the state level. Abortion should therefore similarly be handled by the states.

Anyone making an argument about "banning abortion" is just being dishonest and ignorant. That's not what SCOTUS' ruling did.

 

@Os Trigonum

 

The existence of trigger laws means that the SCOTUS ruling did in fact directly lead to abortion bans in several states, even though the vast majority of people do not support a total ban on abortion as enacted by these laws. Even amongst Republicans, it’s only 60% who think all or almost all abortions should be made illegal.