US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade

[Tenzen12]

Originally Posted by stray

Can you cross the street by yourself or do you need me to hold your hand for that too?

And then...The "life and health" exception is standard in abortion law but the bill really does nothing but supersede state restrictions and codify viability into law.Save the shit talking for when you can actually prove your source. Until then I have to assume you're a liar. And like the mods said this is not a general abortion thread.

Got lucky and found source

YouTube

https://youtu.be/OMFzZ5I30dg

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[The Green One]

As I said, it's a sensitive topic.

[stray]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Forcing women to give birth, especially like what's happening in Alabama, IS violence

//

This. And I'm sure the police state (that was coincidentally expanded by weakening Miranda rights just the other day) won't be able to help themselves from violence either.

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Got lucky and found source

That woman is obviously an idiot but that's not even remotely a federal bill as you and the Russian bot guy claimed - it seems to be Virginia. And the only thing the bill seems to actually do is lower the bar for doctors to perform an abortion in an emergency.

[Tenzen12]

Goalposting huh. Last time I checked, I was making whole thing up and was looking for deep fakes...

[stray]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Goalposting huh. Last time I checked, I was making whole thing up and was looking for deep fakes...

Its been well over a month since you brought up the video in the first place, and I know forced birthers can't help themselves from lying but the video you gave me in the end isn't what you claimed it was. If I order a steak at a restaurant and hours later they show up with a hot dog instead I'm going to complain there too.

[CrowKenobi]

Remember, keep personal attacks out of this thread and limit discussion to the ruling itself and the aftermath.

[Heep]

Another proof U.S.A. is one of the most retarded countrystan in the World.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Forcing women to give birth, especially like what's happening in Alabama, IS violence

//

The point is, as Green said, both sides have VERY strong opinions. Go ahead and say that, and I'm sure you'll face a lot of people that say killing an unborn child is not just violence, it's murder. And it's not something you can prove or disprove, it's a matter of personal viewpoints on what constitutes a "person". You can talk all you want about how cruel it is to the woman to consider the child a person at a particular point, but it's not a matter of kindness or cruelty to the woman, it's just a matter of how the person defines humanity and personhood. That's why it's such a sensitive topic, and we shouldn't let things go any further. You don't like it, there are elections coming up. Vote for people that will make sensible decisions about this (seriously, I'm begging you). If that doesn't work, then don't riot, move. Not because you're not welcome, but because a mass exodus will hurt the state more than a little property damage and hospital bills from the fights.

I'm just glad that, aside from one justice, the majority at least assert that they hold things like contraception and homosexual marriage separate, as they don't involve a life. I find it awful enough that any state would refuse to at the bare minimum make allowances in cases of rape, but if they take away contraception too then things really are going to get very bad (or, more to the point, much worse) very quickly.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

but it's not a matter of kindness or cruelty to the woman, it's just a matter of how the person defines humanity and personhood.

Then make childbirth free. Make childcare free. Make all the health checkups and and other health issues free.

Or is it suddenly no longer about humanity and personhood?

You don't like it, there are elections coming up. Vote for people that will make sensible decisions about this

You realize that doesn't matter as long as this supreme court retains a 6-3 majority of republicans, right?

If that doesn't work, then don't riot, move. Not because you're not welcome, but because a mass exodus will hurt the state more than a little property damage and hospital bills from the fights.

Do you think moving is cheap, or easy?

aside from one justice

Two. Alito and Thomas. And they're just the only ones being vocal about it. You can be damned sure that, at minimum, gay marriage is next on the chopping block. The basis for it is in this very ruling. Same with contraceptives.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by GDB

Then make childbirth free. Make childcare free. Make all the health checkups and and other health issues free.

Or is it suddenly no longer about humanity and personhood?



You realize that doesn't matter as long as this supreme court retains a 6-3 majority of republicans, right?



Do you think moving is cheap, or easy?



Two. Alito and Thomas. And they're just the only ones being vocal about it. You can be damned sure that, at minimum, gay marriage is next on the chopping block. The basis for it is in this very ruling. Same with contraceptives.

Actually it makes a huge difference. The SC didn’t outlaw abortion, they just said that the states could decide. That means if you vote in representatives who support more appropriate laws, you’ll get the appropriate rights.

And I wasn’t expressing my own opinion, just saying that those people aren’t generally trying to hurt women in their minds, they just see the embryo as a person. That’s why it’s so hard an issue. This question doesn’t really involve the mother even though the effects of the conclusion have a bad g impact on her.

Also, the point about the judgments is that they actually were explicit. It’s not that they weren’t vocal about their opinion, they were vocal about their feelings that such matters were completely different from abortion.

Also, I know moving is hard and expensive. But it also has a huge impact on the state if lots of people move. It’s another way to make your opposition clear and ultimately drive the state to reconsider the factions they ignored.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Forcing women to give birth, especially like what's happening in Alabama, IS violence

//

It is a sign of how warped the debate has become when not being allowed to kill your children is violence.

Originally Posted by Heep

Another proof U.S.A. is one of the most retarded countrystan in the World.

And yet abortion laws are still less restrictive in the US as a whole than in places like Europe. In my state abortion is unrestricted all the way to birth.

Originally Posted by GDB

You realize that doesn't matter as long as this supreme court retains a 6-3 majority of republicans, right?

The Roe v Wade part of the decision was 5-4, but yes it will be interesting to see whose turnout is motivated more for the mid terms.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

The point is, as Green said, both sides have VERY strong opinions.

That's nice but if you don't possess a uterus (or maybe a medical degree) your opinion probably shouldn't be used to legislate.

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

Actually it makes a huge difference. The SC didn’t outlaw abortion, they just said that the states could decide. That means if you vote in representatives who support more appropriate laws, you’ll get the appropriate rights.

Literally the day before the supreme court made it clear gun rights couldn't be left up to states, and things went oh so well leaving things like slavery up to the states. Honestly this decision is probably as bad as Dred Scott in terms of how out of touch the court is. There's zero legitimacy left to the court after Scalia's spot was left open for an entire year.

Originally Posted by ramlaen

And yet abortion laws are still less restrictive in the US as a whole than in places like Europe. In my state abortion is unrestricted all the way to birth.

Hey, the Russian bot is back. That's obviously untrue as of yesterday, multiple states had trigger laws that either took effect immediately or will take effect in 30 days.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by stray

That's nice but if you don't possess a uterus (or maybe a medical degree) your opinion probably shouldn't be used to legislate.

Roe vs. Wade was a decision made by men without medical degrees, does that invalidate it?

Literally the day before the supreme court made it clear gun rights couldn't be left up to states

The supreme court made it clear that the government cannot simply deny you constitutional rights.

"In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Hey, the Russian bot is back.

This was random.

That's obviously untrue as of yesterday, multiple states had trigger laws that either took effect immediately or will take effect in 30 days.

And the remaining majority of states have significantly less restrictive laws than most countries.

[stray]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

"In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Most of the "historical tradition" seems to be John Wayne movies or something; you couldn't for example actually take your gun into a saloon in the actual "wild west." The crux of "originalism" is that it mostly boils down to speculation and fiction, and until Heller (in 2008) the supreme court was actually much more conservative in its reading of the second amendment.

In the final Dobbs opinion they still didn't still address viability, it was just a shitpost about some "historical tradition" justifying why they should vacate the original (correct) decision. Kangaroo court is apropos.

And the remaining majority of states have significantly less restrictive laws than most countries.

I don't know where you're getting this "majority" garbage from, a total of 21-22 states have trigger laws (10 banned it yesterday) while only 16 have legal protections and a few have pre-Roe bans that were never repealed.

[Key Board]

Do you think a person is fully formed at the moment of conception
They're not even a crying baby at that time. Not even an embryo. They're a clump of cells.

Alabama banning every form of abortion "unless it poses serious health risks" does not acknowledge that.
It does not even acknowledge cases of incest and rape.

//

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by stray

Most of the "historical tradition" seems to be John Wayne movies or something; you couldn't for example actually take your gun into a saloon in the actual "wild west." The crux of "originalism" is that it mostly boils down to speculation and fiction, and until Heller (in 2008) the supreme court was actually much more conservative in its reading of the second amendment.

There is no historical tradition of laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.

In the final opinion they still didn't still address viability, it was just a shitpost about some "historical tradition" justifying why they should vacate the original (correct) decision.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion the original Roe vs. Wade decision was a travesty from the legal perspective, and I am not talking about how Jane Roe perjured herself about being raped by a black man.

I don't know where you're getting this "majority" garbage from, a total of 21-22 states have trigger laws (10 banned it yesterday) while only 16 have legal protections and a few have pre-Roe bans that were never repealed.

3 states had automatic bans that went into effect yesterday, 3 states have bans that go into effect after 30 days if nothing else happens, and 7 states allow bans to be put in place by their legislature, governor or attorney general if they choose to do so (the specific person/s depends on the state in question). The states other than these that had pre-Roe bans are unlikely to enforce them. This leaves 37 of 50 states, I think it is safe to call that a majority.

All 13 of the states with trigger bans have exceptions for the mothers health and 5 of them have exceptions for rape/incest.

[stray]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

There is no historical tradition of laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.

There have always been limits to gun ownership. To claim otherwise is ignorance of the "historical record"

Regardless of your opinion on abortion the original Roe vs. Wade decision was a travesty from the legal perspective

Yet it stood for 50 years (after being reaffirmed in 1992) and it took a partisan, activist court to overturn.

The states other than these that had pre-Roe bans are unlikely to enforce them.

Your opinion is not exactly insulation from prosecution or litigation. As of right now abortion is effectively banned in 10 states while others are working out specifics.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

That's nice but if you don't possess a uterus (or maybe a medical degree) your opinion probably shouldn't be used to legislate.Literally the day before the supreme court made it clear gun rights couldn't be left up to states, and things went oh so well leaving things like slavery up to the states. Honestly this decision is probably as bad as Dred Scott in terms of how out of touch the court is. There's zero legitimacy left to the court after Scalia's spot was left open for an entire year.Hey, the Russian bot is back. That's obviously untrue as of yesterday, multiple states had trigger laws that either took effect immediately or will take effect in 30 days.

Said like everyone supporting the opinion was male. I was surprised by just how many women I saw on the side cheering for the SC's decision on the news coverage.

And what does it matter that the SC doesn't assign everything to the states? The point is that they allowed THIS to the states, and therefore if enough people vote for individuals who support permitting abortion up to the point of viability, then the congress will become much more likely to pass laws in that direction. Just like heavily partisan governing bodies passed laws to ban abortion or judged to allow those bans, if the people voted into office swing the other way then they'll most likely vote to allow it. It doesn't really matter whether you leave things to the states or to the federal government; both have value at different times, and both governing bodies have proven time and time again that they could make bad decisions, or selfish decisions, or decisions that deny personhood for the sake of other undisputed people that would be affected. And even that has been done in different ways for good and for bad, as the question of what defines a person obviously has a distinct answer with each class in question.

Anyway, why are we discussing gun ownership laws so much? That's a whole different can of worms that should have its own thread (and just to throw my own two cents in there, before I worry about laws I'm worried about the capacity to enforce those laws; I have doubts about how well law enforcement is upholding the current laws, so I'm not so sure how useful it'll be to add new laws to the book).

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

And what does it matter that the SC doesn't assign everything to the states?

States were so bad with human rights we needed an amendment (14th) to keep them in line, and considering more recent gay rights movements not much has changed in 150 years. They can't be trusted, moreover the only reason to empower states is for the sake of oppression.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

States were so bad with human rights we needed an amendment (14th) to keep them in line, and considering more recent gay rights movements not much has changed in 150 years. They can't be trusted, moreover the only reason to empower states is for the sake of oppression.

I wasn't saying the states are entirely trustworthy, just that they're no worse than the federal government, something that has also proven fairly true throughout the history of the US (see 2016-2020).

And there most certainly are reasons to empower the states. I wouldn't say that abortion qualifies, but different locations have different needs and values (and no, I'm not talking about moral values). A state that's almost all rural farmland is going to have a lot of different needs than a state that's almost all urban. This's part of why things like an electoral college and two separate houses remain important in my opinion: attempt to make sure that the needs of more sparsely-populated regions aren't always superseded by the needs of more densely-populated ones.

That said, again, this is for things that can be shown to vary in importance and value from one region to another, and thus not something that abortion or gun rights fall under. Those are more due to the concern of giving too much control to the federal government in general. As I said, the federal government is no more trustworthy than the state governments. Just look at some of the jackasses we've had as President. If you want to object to giving control over something to someone you don't trust, you should stop and consider whether you really have that much reason to trust the guy you'd be giving it to instead. At least with a state government it's a little easier to have an impact on the representative (due to reduced size) and also easier to relocate (again, I know moving is difficult and expensive, but you'd have a much easier time finding a location in a different state than finding a location in a different nation). You still don't have that much control, just a drop in the bucket, but a drop in a bucket is still better than a drop in a pond.