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

Retreat? I asked you straight up do you think that child should have the baby and you said yes, you then tried to make the argument about 10 different things, all terrible points easily put aside, and your main counter was that it would just be too difficult to make an exception for this girl. Which we know is 100% not true since other states DO have exceptions that would have covered for her to get an abortion.

You don't even realize how your posts here contradict your point in the previous post lol which is amusing but not very surprising at all.

But I do find it funny you didn't tag me or reply to my post because we know what's up.

You're pretty sick for thinking a 10 year old should have a baby.

 

Of course it is judgmental. They are killing human lives. That is bad. My judgment is that it is bad. That has nothing to do with the fact that unplanned pregnancy can generally be avoided very easily using any of a number of available options.

Apparently you missed where I gave a whole list of options on how to avoid getting to that point. It also isn't hard to figure out when that specific life begins. It happens when the two living gametes combine to form a living human.

Yes, and other parents don't. Not every child has to be a perfect fit for every couple that wants to adopt.

What wasn't the scenario I put up?

LOL, rosy projections? I gave you the absolute maximum number of fetal abnormalities and a 0% chance of getting adopted. Those aren't rosy projections, that is the worst case scenario. That is every baby that the mother claims she is aborting for fetal abnormalities actually having fetal abnormalities that are so severe that no one will adopt them and ending up in foster care. That is the opposite of a rosy projection.

Again, I think you missed the part where I gave a whole list of family planning options that are available. I have even previously suggested the state offering to pay teenagers to sterilize. $1000 for a vasectomy, $7,000 for tubal ligation.

Then you aren't reading it.

There is a split among libertarians on abortion. Those who consider the unborn a child being killed are pro-life, your freedom cannot be based on killing an innocent, because the child also has freedom and your 9 months of carrying a baby that 99%+ of the time you chose to create doesn't outweigh the child's right to life. Those who don't consider the unborn a child are pro-choice, you can't tell a woman what to do with her body. It is a question of whether there is a conflict of rights or not.

 

Why do you keep talking to non contributing members
You know they contribute 0

that’s like talking to rocks

 

Did you miss the part about 100,000 babies?

 

The New Question Haunting Adoption
At a glance, America’s shortage of adoptable babies may seem like a problem. But is adoption meant to provide babies for families, or families for babies?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/adopt-baby-cost-process-hard/620258/

excerpt:

. . . And, as we’ve heard a million times, there are so many babies out there who need a good home.

But that is not actually true. Adopting a baby or toddler is much more difficult than it was a few decades ago. Of the nearly 4 million American children who are born each year, only about 18,000 are voluntarily relinquished for adoption. Though the statistics are unreliable, some estimates suggest that dozens of couples are now waiting to adopt each available baby. Since the mid-1970s—the end of the so-called baby-scoop era, when large numbers of unmarried women placed their children for adoption—the percentage of never-married women who relinquish their infants has declined from nearly 9 percent to less than 1 percent.

***
Plenty of children who aren’t babies need families, of course. More than 100,000 children are available for adoption from foster care. But adoptive parents tend to prefer children who are what some in the adoption world call “AYAP”—as young as possible. When I recently searched AdoptUSKids, the nationwide, government-funded website for foster-care adoptions, only about 40 kids under age 5, out of the 4,000 registered, appeared in my search. Many of those 40 had extensive medical needs or were part of a sibling group—a sign that the child is in even greater need of a stable family, but also a more challenging experience for their adoptive parents.
​

more at the link

 

Split all the babies you want - There's no split for me - I'm a force birth libertarian just the way the founders originally intended

 

"Leave it up to the States"

That 10-year-old was forced to travel out of Ohio for an abortion. If she lived in TX, anyone carrying her across state lines to get an abortion can be sued.

Next up - interstate travel ban, aka a de facto federal ban on abortion.

Interstate abortion travel bans? We're supposed to be a free country, not East Germany. (yahoo.com)

Tens of millions of Americans are too young to remember how repressive regimes clamp down on freedom of movement.

In 1952, citizens of Soviet-controlled East Germany could travel only 100 kilometers (about 62 miles) without permission. If you lived in East Berlin after 1961, you could be shot and killed if you tried to get past the heavily fortified and guarded Berlin Wall.

Tracking abortion across state borders
The United States is late to the game, but here we come.

The 6-3 Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe v. Wade said it was returning decision-making to the states. But conservatives are making a play to block interstate travel for abortions. If they succeed, there might as well be a federal ban.

Missouri legislators are considering bills allowing private citizens to sue anyone who helps someone have an out-of-state abortion, from drivers to doctors. The door is already open for similar developments in Texas and Oklahoma, which have laws incentivizing citizen lawsuits against those who help people have abortions.

Some companies say they will pay expenses for employees leaving a state to have an abortion. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says he might hit the firms with $100,000 fines.

How is any of this legal in the USA? How is it even thinkable, given American values of independence, autonomy, freedom to go anywhere in a vast nation and states' rights to pass their own laws? How is it consistent with the onetime GOP reverence for private industry and its captains? Or was that always fake?

 

Cons hate everything related to the government. Even then they "win".

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx
Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic 25% Low

 

Finding the original intent is very difficult. It takes a real brave soul to find unpopular original intents that happen to be wildly advantageous for your armed, authoritarian, coup d'etat prone base.

But I have been assured by many well versed authorities here that such original intent concordance is purely coincidental and not at all a recent invention.

 

I think Roe v Wade being overturned is terrible, but will it really hurt people ability to get abortions?

Today, you can simply take 2 pills and over 95% of pregnancies terminate under 3 months.

Read about it here:

So, even if it is banned, seems there is a way for women who want to terminate a pregnancy to do it in the safety of their own home.

How can they stop that?

DD

 

It's not. You're making the most simplistic argument regarding what is life. As others have noted unique human genetics could apply to cancer cells and most of the time when two gametes combine development doesn't go much further than the cellular level. This is a philosophical argument that is heavily colored by faith beliefs.

I agree there are a number of available options out there which is why I support more funding for family planning. The problem is that in this society there are many resistant towards even teaching family planning, providing access to contraception and several Conservatives have talked about this ruling being a springboard towards removing the right to contraception.

and that is why adoption will not be a solution to unwanted pregnacies.

You put up then would I accept a restriction on abortion to fetal abnormalities. A restriction that you wouldn't agree to as you said you don't accept that as an argument for abotion. So in other words it wasn't a scenario that you agreed to when I asked whether you would accept it.

If abortion is outlawed completely we are likly to see many more non adopted children and as you note "fetal abnormalities" are self-reported so it's possible the number might be higher. Either way accepting your argument would still leavel thousands of children unadopted and becoming wards of the state.

Yes you did and gave you credit for it. Would you be willing to go further and support things like increased funding for natal and early childhood healthcare?

Sorry I miswrote. It should've been "role the dice on adoption". Which is what you are saying as you acknowledge that not every baby will be adopted.

And in the case of rape clearly the woman didn't intend to create that life would a pro-life libertarian accept abortion then?

 

Yes it will hurt woman's ability to get abortions given the problems with access. There has already been this situation in SD where for practical purposes there hasn't been access to abortion for years. What this will mean is that in many parts of the country abortions will become more dangerous as they go underground. With things like Plan B several states are already talking about restricting or banning them also so women in those states will also have to get them through a black market.

 

Yes we've been discussing this. If this was really about children then all of those children on foster care would already be adopted. As we've already discussed and even the proponents of adoption as a solution for abortion know not all children will be adopted. If we see abortion outlawed there will be far more children born who are will have abnormalities and from women who since they didn't want to be pregnant in the first place likely not taking the best care of themselves during pregnancy. That will lead to many more children born who are going to want to be adopted.

The answer we've heard is those become the wards of the state. So we're going to end up putting more children into an already overburdened foster care program or build Dickensian state wards.

 

Roe proponents just need to become shrill and hyoerbolic like Republicans with immingrants. Every time a foster kid commits a crime, that crime is the personal responsibility of each and every conservative in America. If only his parents could have gotten the abortion they wanted, good, God fearing Chistian white people wouldn't have to cower in their homes in fear from the great unaborted horde coming to get them, because everybody knows that children who are wanted by their parents don't commit crimes.

 

Cancer cells are slight genetic mutations of your own cells that cause them to grow out of control and result in your illness/death. A zygote is a new combination of human genes, unique from either parent but a combination of both. Certainly both are alive, but one is a new life and the other is a part of you that is killing you. It is silly to compare them.

What does that have to do with my argument? I am not resistant to teaching family planning, and in fact have encouraged it.

That doesn't at all follow logically from the quoted post. If half the people looking to adopt only wanted boys and half only wanted girls and half the unwanted babies were boys and half were girls, then not every couple would be looking for every kind of baby, but there would be a home for every one. A shoe for every foot.

So? I asked that to prove that you want abortion on demand and your demand for abortion has nothing to do with fetal abnormalities. If you are not willing to outlaw abortion of healthy babies, then your arguments based on fetal abnormalities are a dodge. Why even bring it up, it doesn't at all support your position, which is a mother should be able to support any baby, even one without fetal abnormalities.

It is self-reported under a system where a person would have no incentive to deny actual fetal abnormalities and a strong incentive to deny that she is killing a perfectly healthy child. That would lead to overreporting, not underreporting. We can compare to the percentage of live births of children with down syndrome, which comes no where near 1 in 12.

I don't at all oppose people funding whatever they want, which certainly includes natal and early childhood healthcare.

Oh, it isn't a 100% perfect solution to every problem? I guess it is worthless then. May as well kill 750,000 healthy babies again this year.

No, just as we wouldn't accept that someone who was given stolen property doesn't have a right to it over the rightful owner. It is a conflict of rights, and the innocent child's right to life trumps the mother's right not to be inconvenienced. Rape babies are another red herring though. Less than 1% of abortions are in cases of rape, and it isn't as though you support outlawing abortion except in rape cases. You support women having a right to abort healthy babies for her own convenience. Why don't you make arguments in support of that position instead of trying to deflect to rape or fetal abnormalities or incest, etc.

 

I think it will be easy to get the pills and many women will simply stock them....as they should.......

DD

 

A zygote does not think or feel. A baby does. Silly to compare them?

 

That's exactly what 10 year old rape victims are doing. Stocking up on Plan B. You're such an insufferable POS.

 

A patient under anesthesia doesn't think or feel. The same person does when brought back to consciousness. No, it isn't silly to compare them. Cancer cells are not at all like a gestating baby. A zygote is a baby, it is just still gestating.