Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[BackAgain]

You're trying to change the point where a new person, with state protected rights, is legally acknowledged. Trying to say that starts inside another person's body just seems insane to me. It basically means one must forfeit control over their own body if anyone else reports them as pregnant.

You forfeit your right to freely swing your fist when in too close proximity to another person, too.

 

[dblack]

You forfeit your right to freely swing your fist when in too close proximity to another person, too.

Agreed. The point being debated is when a fetus is legally acknowledged as a person.

 

[BackAgain]

Agreed. The point being debated is when a fetus is legally acknowledged as a person.

Right. That is the point. And we know it has been (even prior to Roe v. Wade) traditionally viewed as when it is born and maybe drawn it’s dirt breath. But that is not necessarily a reasonable view. If you can’t kill the newborn infant at the moment it has taken breath number one, then why can you kill that same life a moment before it is born? Are we really claiming that the magic of “personhood” suddenly comes into existence only after the kid comes outside of the mom’s body? Or, are we not bound by logic and common sense to acknowledge that the little life was a “person” every bit as much when it was still inside the mom’s body only a moment earlier?

My answer remains. At some point between “a” and “z” the life became a person. Maybe this is why the SCOTUS wrestled with the notion of “viability” in the Roe v. Wade decision. That’s how come they marked the pregnancy into trimesters. But science has moved in. “Viability” comes sooner nowadays. And it may come even sooner and sooner as science continues to progress. If the life is not viable yet in the zygote stage, maybe that’s not yet a person. At some point in the embryonic stage, maybe it becomes viable. Maybe it is a “person” at that point.

 

[dblack]

Right. That is the point. And we know it has been (even prior to Roe v. Wade) traditionally viewed as when it is born and maybe drawn it’s dirt breath. But that is not necessarily a reasonable view. If you can’t kill the newborn infant at the moment it has taken breath number one, then why can you kill that same life a moment before it is born?

Because as long as it's part of the woman's body, and not its own entity, it's up to her what happens to it.

I think what we're running into here is the basic liberal, statist premise that every single social problem can be solved by passing a law. Most problems can't be solved by government and, in those cases, trying to force a legal remedy only makes things worse.

 

[BackAgain]

Because as long as it's part of the woman's body, and not its own entity, it's up to her what happens to it.

I think what we're running into here is the basic liberal, statist premise that every single social problem can be solved by passing a law. Most problems can't be solved by government and, in those cases, trying to force a legal remedy only makes things worse.

It is not part of her body. It is connected to her body. But it is — even to the point of being genetically — a different life.

And your claim is devoid of merit. While some things can’t be properly addressed by law, some things can. And some things should.

 

[dblack]

While some things can’t be properly addressed by law, some things can. And some things should.

I think the coming shitshow will prove my point. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, it's going to get ugly

 

[BackAgain]

I think the coming shitshow will prove my point. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, it's going to get ugly

The shit show has been happening for over 50 years with the imprimatur of the US government. Maybe now we can at least seek to prevent the slaughter — or at least stanch the flow of blood a bit.

 

[dblack]

The shit show has been happening for over 50 years with the imprimatur of the US government. Maybe now we can at least seek to prevent the slaughter — or at least stanch the flow of blood a bit.

Like I said, I hope you're right. But I suspect the slaughter will go on unabated. States will fuck around with a 'War on Abortion" for a few decades and then walk it back.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[TemplarKormac]

Agreed. The point being debated is when a fetus is legally acknowledged as a person.

Aaaaaaand I'm back in this thread again.

Life begins when gametes converge into a zygote and the zygote divides into two separate, distinct cells.

Nature doesn't obey the law, nor does human biology. They obey science.

 

[task0778]

Agreed. The point being debated is when a fetus is legally acknowledged as a person.

I think there's more to it than that. Another point is also being debated, and that has to do with whether or not the Supreme Court should get out of the business of trying to discern fundamental rights beyond those drawn from its text, with the possible exception of rights that can be shown to be objectively, deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions. Implied rights with no supporting case history doesn't cut it. IOW, do we base our entire system of justice on what the law says or what 9 unelected people say it is. The US Congress is charged with legislating our laws, nobody else. It is their duty to create our constitutionally unenumerated civil rights, NOT the Supreme Court. And if they can't or won't do it, then it falls to the states to write their own legislation on the issue at hand.

 

[buttercup]

Because the concept of unborn people having rights is nonsense. It's a conceit to justify your desire to bully others.

Abortion is the ultimate bullying.

 

[buttercup]

No, it's not. It's a question of an individual's sovereignty over their own body. What they choose to do with their life, and the life inside them, is just none of your fucking business. Jesus, get a hobby and quit meddling with others' lives.

That is absolutely false, and demonstrably so. If it really was about bodily autonomy, then abortion would be acceptable and justifiable for any reason throughout the entire pregnancy, including moments before birth.

But apart from total sociopaths, we all know that butchering a full-term baby moments before birth is evil and barbaric. So that right there blows away your outdated bodily autonomy non-argument.

And what that shows is that it really comes down to when life begins. And only an ignorant person doesn't understand that life begins long before the baby pops his head out of the birth canal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is not part of her body. It is connected to her body. But it is — even to the point of being genetically — a different life.

And your claim is devoid of merit. While some things can’t be properly addressed by law, some things can. And some things should.

The genetic variance the developing child has from the mother and father prove alone that the child is a separate entity. While related to the mother, they are unique and just that bit different from her.

 

[Ghost1776]

 

[TemplarKormac]

View attachment 645815

. Reply as a retweet. Because I can. Because that meme was funny as hell and dead on accurate.

 

[Delldude]

Because as long as it's part of the woman's body, and not its own entity, it's up to her what happens to it.

I think what we're running into here is the basic liberal, statist premise that every single social problem can be solved by passing a law. Most problems can't be solved by government and, in those cases, trying to force a legal remedy only makes things worse.

Murder a pregnant woman and see how fast it becomes an entity.
Last I read, Roberts can't get the other con's to budge.

 

[dblack]

Murder a pregnant woman and see how fast it becomes an entity.

Yes. The goal of adding penalties for killing a pregnant woman was to establish the fetus as a person. This was done as part of the pro-life campaign, so citing it here is merely circular.

Last I read, Roberts can't get the other con's to budge.

Probably not. We're going to be in for a national shitshow.

 

[eagle1462010]

Yes. The goal of adding penalties for killing a pregnant woman was to establish the fetus as a person. This was done as part of the pro-life campaign, so citing it here is merely circular.

Probably not. We're going to be in for a national shitshow.

Tell that to those convicted its merely.

The shitshow is 50 years of abortions up to partial birth abortions which is barbsrusm.

High time for a shit show against killing the unborn whi cant speak for themselves.

Most opinions are Roe v Wade will be overturned.

Let the shit show begin.

 

[Lisa558]

Murder a pregnant woman and see how fast it becomes an entity.
Last I read, Roberts can't get the other con's to budge.

That’s good news, but how would you know that? Robert’s isn’t broadcasting what’s happening in secret discussions, is he?

But no surprise that Roberts is kowtowing to the leftists’ threats. He already revealed himself for a turncoat when he claimed Obamacare was Constitutional. I wonder what dirt they have on him.