• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Delphic Oracle said:
The problem still remains that deaths will occur when complications arise and the person does not seek medical treatment for fear of prosecution.
Click to expand...

And again I did not intend to suggest that illegal abortions maybe being slightly "better" (horrible way of putting it but you know what I mean) now then they were 100 years ago does not raise this anywhere near to the level of "acceptable."

Just one data point that's been in my head is all.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
The problem still remains that deaths will occur when complications arise and the person does not seek medical treatment for fear of prosecution.
Click to expand...

Or just fully qualified medical professionals refusing standard of care because they fear prosecution. What if that molar pregnancy is considered a "baby" by some overzealous prosecutor? Let's not take that chance!
 
cosmicaug said:
Or just fully qualified medical professionals refusing standard of care because they fear prosecution. What if that molar pregnancy is considered a "baby" by some overzealous prosecutor? Let's not take that chance!
Click to expand...

We already have that with doctors afraid to discuss abortion with someone in the act of miscarrying.

"Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' ""

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months
 
It's like Republicans don't understand that if you lose the mother you also lose the baby.

They are running a trolley problem and not noticing both people are on the same track.

But again "Your evil doesn't make sense even within it's own context" is something that no longer surprises me.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
We already have that with doctors afraid to discuss abortion with someone in the act of miscarrying.

"Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' ""

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months
Click to expand...

Exactly the kind of people who get caught not ready for these laws. Someone looking for an abortion knows to get their ducks in a row, but someone experiencing a sudden miscarriage for a wanted pregnancy doesn't have the time to make arrangements to get out of Christian Dominionist country. By the time you realize you're going through a bloody miscarriage, it's far too late to hop a flight to Massachusetts.
 
If God wants a woman to have a child, she won't miscarry. If she does, then she's obviously a sinner of some sort and deserves the punishment that God is inflicting on her.
(sarcasm)
 
Armitage72 said:
If God wants a woman to have a child, she won't miscarry. If she does, then she's obviously a sinner of some sort and deserves the punishment that God is inflicting on her.
(sarcasm)
Click to expand...

Trevor Noah noted yesterday that "God wanted it" should be applied to limp dicks.
 
Random said:
It's the campaign funding. Democrats in the 1990's started to walk away from popular economic policies in order to attract wealthy donors, and compete with the pro-business GOP fundraising. The more this happened, the more we had to lean on "being not as bad as Republicans". As we did that, the economic differences between the Democrats and the Republicans drew fuzzier, and the GOP found social wedge issues to be more effective, and relied on them more and more.

After a few decades of that, we have a GOP that's gone mental, and a Democratic Party that is more interested in fundraising for elections than winning elections, and way more interested in either of those than passing any kind of liberal policies...
Click to expand...

Rather than that last paragraph I would summarize this as both parties are dependent on the same donors and are not as different as they pretend to be.

OTOH, the Democrats are all we 'libruls' have so we have to work with them.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
For earlier term, the abortion pill is probably what you'd expect which is certainly a big step up in safety compared to the ole coat hanger.

Anyone showing up to an ER with complications from this (which do occasionally happen) is likely going to be interrogated by the cops and arrested. Of course, ordinary miscarriages will be suspicious too, so anyone grieving the loss of a wanted pregnancy can look forward to being accused of being a baby-killer by the pigs.

I think a bigger impact is that people with wanted pregnancies are going to have their options limited if they start to miscarry. They aren't going to be planning to flee out of state like someone wanting to abort will, and they may find themselves stuck in some hospital with an emergency condition in which doctors cannot act appropriately because of these laws. Pregnant people are absolutely going to die or needlessly suffer horribly because doctors refuse to deal with a variety of complicated miscarriages appropriately.
Click to expand...

Re your last paragraph, that is already happening in Catholic hospitals around the country.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Stepping back the sadtragic thing is if you put a gun to my head and made me swear how much I think the Right actually cares about abortion in the abstract I don't know what my answer would be. Do they really hate it or do they just hate it because the liberals like it. Strip away the hate and the trolling and the nihilism and is there any actual opinion, even a wrong one, at the core? I dunno. I honestly don't anymore.

Do they hate women for getting abortions or hate abortions because women get them? Which is the tail and which is the dog? I dunno. One. The other. Both. Neither. Both in some weird mobius strip of each one feeding the other maybe. I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm just pointing out that the current version of Democrats "winning" includes having a sizeable coalition of party members who are opposed to a variety of liberal issues. This is a recurring problem that explains that, while Republicans seem to be able to project power while in the minority, Democrats can't seem to accomplish much even when they are in control.

They've repositioned themselves, since the 90's at the latest, as a Conservative-lite party, so it should be no surprise that the Overton window in this country steadily tracks right.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they've "repositioned" themselves that much.

Unfortunately, our political system somehow became structured around two parties that are mostly defined as being in opposition to each other and compete for voters.

There are no distinctions. There are no "Crazy Conservative" or "Crazy Liberal" parties. No "Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal" or "Social Liberal, Small Government" parties. Etc. (Well, there are, but they are marginal because our voting system heavily enforces a limited two party system.) Therefore those two parties have to have very wide tents, and everyone who selects a party is required to compromise. Because neither of the two options really fit.

If the Democratic party moves to the right, it is to chase the voters in the center. If they don't do so, the Republican party, who is doing the same thing, will get them. If you don't get voters, you don't win elections.

For all of the hate for Manchin from the left, a more liberal candidate probably would not have won his seat and the Republicans would control the Senate. So they are better with him than without him. My point being that, without restructuring our elections, ideological purity tests reduce the ability of parties to win elections and therefore the power of the party.

(It's also inconvenient for the parties when representatives suddenly remember they work for the voters of their state, not the party banner they ran under.)

I would love for both parties to splinter so we get more choices on election day and maybe be able to vote for the candidate I like best without doing so aiding the major party candidate I like least.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Rather than that last paragraph I would summarize this as both parties are dependent on the same donors and are not as different as they pretend to be.

OTOH, the Democrats are all we 'libruls' have so we have to work with them.
Click to expand...

This.

And the Republicans are all the "conservatives" have as well.
 
A lot of my American friends have been sharing this on social media. Feel free to steal, if you have a friend who needs to... go camping.

fbA9Vjn.jpg


Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/fbA9Vjn.jpg
 
Meadmaker said:
Well, no. They didn't try to, and nothing they did could be used to imply that they will. To my way of thinking, it's best to address the specific case or the specific issue that's under discussion, but when it comes to Roe v. Wade, people seem compelled to bring in other things that are either completely unrelated, or connected only by the flimsiest thread.

I think on the subject of law, people should address the Supreme Court rulings, specifically. On the subject of social effects, I think people should address abortion, specifically.

If the best you've got is "They might attack interractial marriage", then you've got nothing. It's not very difficult to see that they won't attack Loving v. Virginia at all, so it's not relevant.
Click to expand...
And anyway, how is the SC going to manage tossing interracial marriage without the Thomases noticing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom