Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[Upchurch]

It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

I find this line of thinking odd. How does one determine that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a moral being, capable of innocence or guilt? At the early stages, there isn't even any meaningful brain activity, making the z/e/f about as morally capable as a rock.

And the "most innocent" of what? The traditional religious answer is "sin" or, more specifically, "original sin", but that requires a whole mess of nonsensical belief that should not be the basis of laws in a secular government.

I mean, there are all sorts of wrong with the above quote, but the "innocent" never seems to get any explanation at all.

 

[Warp12]

Is it just the optics that bothers you now? It really seems that you do not care even a little about what is right and wrong on any local issue as long as your overall goal of crushing liberalism is served.

Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time. Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time. Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

It sounds a lot like the rationale an abusive husband uses. "Well, you get me so riled up I can't control myself! It's your fault I hit you!"

Substitute "**** on your rights" for "hit you."

 

[ZiprHead]

Known pro-life republicans who got abortions for their spouse/mistress...

Elliot Broidy
Scott Lloyd
Tim Murphy
Scott DesJarlais*
Mark Robinson

*SDJ is particularly egregious, two for his wife and one for his mistress.

 

[Apathia]

Murder in the womb!

If an embryo is legally a person.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/parasitic-twin

So, one twin can in some instances absorb the other which can never come to term.

This monster absorbed her twin!
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a18754259/chimerism/

 

[bruto]

Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time. Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

So in short you confim what I said. So be it.

 

[cosmicaug]

Probably kind of humbling if you were already out bitching and moaning about the status of things before the ruling came down. It seems that it was overdue to hit that reset button.

And yet, since 1994 the only other countries besides the USA that have hit that reset button to remove such human rights are El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Poland. Sorry, this is a fairly rare, retrograde move.

 

[cosmicaug]

If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at.

It's scoffed at because you've never explained what an "increased focus on personal responsibility" involves (other than by indicating that punishing people for having sex with a pregnancy does the job, somehow).

 

[shuttlt]

It's scoffed at because you've never explained what an "increased focus on personal responsibility" involves (other than by indicating that punishing people for having sex with a pregnancy does the job, somehow).

It's hardly like Warp12 invented this idea. It was kind of a dominant theme in US culture for 150 years. Ultimately it goes back a couple of thousand years to Greek ideas about freedom being about mastery of oneself which, relatively recently, were replaced by a hedonistic idea of freedom being the absence of external constraints.

 

[cosmicaug]

It sounds a lot like the rationale an abusive husband uses. "Well, you get me so riled up I can't control myself! It's your fault I hit you!"

Substitute "**** on your rights" for "hit you."

You don't understand. Teh libs made him do it!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If some women are truly "horrified" that they won't be able to kill an unwanted baby, well, then maybe they should take measures to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes, women don't have a choice in cases of rape and incest, but such cases account for fewer than 2% of all abortions; some studies put the percentage even lower. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective abortions, i.e., abortions done purely for convenience.

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" apply to the baby as well? What right does the mother have to make the life-or-death decision for the baby, when the baby is powerless to express himself/herself at that point?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Asked whether she considers the case of the pregnant 10-year-old to be a situation where the mother’s life is at risk, Noem avoided answering the question by saying that situation is one where the doctors and loved ones would have to make decisions for that family.
“That’s what’s interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books,” Noem said. “The decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. That’s appropriate. It’s the way our Constitution intended.”
So which is it? Doctors, loved ones, or legislators? (or, heaven forbid, pregnant women and girls)

Also, the Constitution doesn't "intend" anything, it's a piece of paper. I think you meant the founding fathers you worship so much.

"Legislators that are closest to the people," what a fantasy she must have about being some benign queen beloved by her people.

 

[kookbreaker]

Ah, back to good ol' slut shamin'. Compassionate Conservatism at its finest.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

If some women are truly "horrified" that they won't be able to kill an unwanted baby, well, then maybe they should take measures to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes, women don't have a choice in cases of rape and incest, but such cases account for fewer than 2% of all abortions; some studies put the percentage even lower. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective abortions, i.e., abortions done purely for convenience.
Why doesn't "my body, my choice" apply to the baby as well? What right does the mother have to make the life-or-death decision for the baby, when the baby is powerless to express himself/herself at that point?

So the **** what? Why do you think a woman should have to pass your personal test of how important you think her pregnancy is?

If you truly believe a mass of cells is more important than the rights of an actual human being, just say so. I'm tired of these "arguments" that boil down to "sluts should be punished, gotta teach them some morals."

 

[Bob001]

The more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It's not that Roe was bad...it's that obviously a lot of very vocal pro-choice advocates have some pretty questionable views about the value of human life. It is as though they would have never been satisfied with anything besides completely unrestricted medical abortions. After all, in their view these aren't developing humans we are talking about...they are just parasites. And anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of science, to them.
....

Who is "they?" Who is promoting that view? How much support do they have? Multiple Supreme Court justices reached several decisions, including Roe and Casey, over decades that set out the terms under which abortion was legal, and also the terms under which states could establish reasonable restrictions. No pro-choice advocates were demanding that the SC do anything else except maintain existing law, and federal legislation about abortion wasn't, regrettably, a high priority for Democrats even when they controlled Congress. The status quo generally worked just fine. Six SC justices reached a radical conclusion, to which they were already predisposed, that overturned almost 50 years of jurisprudence. Nothing stops them from doing the same with other established principles. And you think that's a good thing?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at.

In seeking only a legal remedy the anti-abortionists have proven themselves only interested in criminalizing abortion.

One who was truly interested in increasing personal responsibility would be looking to make abortion legal, safe and rare. Increasing sex ed and access to birth control and health care is how one decreases abortions. Making them illegal doesn't decrease abortions. We know that from history.

Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time. Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

So balanced is claiming you have a general support for Roe and you celebrate the overturning of Roe?

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, Bruto, here we are. If I proclaim that I think abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest, that isn't good enough. If I say I would like to see an increased focus on personal responsibility, that is scoffed at. Even combining that with a general support for Roe isn't good enough. All of these things have been my general position for a long time.

But you never tell us why you think a baby that results from rape or incest isn't equally worthy of life like babies not resulting from rape or incest. Could that be because these exceptions undermine the entire foundation of the anti-choice argument?

Nothing is good enough, and obviously many liberals won't be happy until every restraint is loosened.

According to a May, 2022 Pew Research poll:

Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (19%) say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. Fewer (8%) say abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception. By contrast, 71% either say it should be mostly legal or mostly illegal, or say there are exceptions to their blanket support for, or opposition to, legal abortion.

The minority, by far, only 8% say no abortion for any reason. And yet, this is what we are seeing being passed in some states like LA. As of now, there are at least 8 states with this no exception law and 5 with only an exception for the life of the mother. How does this add up mathematically to the "will of the people"? It doesn't.

"Legal, no restrictions" has been presented by the anti-choice group as a horror allowing abortions up to birth. But this is scare mongering hyperbole because just how many women would wait to her third trimester to abort a healthy baby? And how many doctors would agree to do it? Virtually none. Third trimester abortions/ forced births are overwhelmingly done for severe medical problems to the mother or fetus.

So, guess what? I am not going to bother any further with trying to look at things in a balanced manner or with any compromise when it comes to this issue. Let these kids carry their rape babies; it's no skin off my backside. Incest? Well, at least there won't be a problem deciding who's side of the family the baby looks like. I hope all of the ultra-activists sit back and admire the fruits of their labor when stricter and stricter laws are enacted.

The scotus has laid the groundwork. And I am celebrating it.

This is probably the most honest post you've ever written here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If some women are truly "horrified" that they won't be able to kill an unwanted baby, well, then maybe they should take measures to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Yes, women don't have a choice in cases of rape and incest, but such cases account for fewer than 2% of all abortions; some studies put the percentage even lower. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective abortions, i.e., abortions done purely for convenience.

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" apply to the baby as well? What right does the mother have to make the life-or-death decision for the baby, when the baby is powerless to express himself/herself at that point?

I'll repeat this instead of telling you to see my last post:

In seeking only a legal remedy the anti-abortionists have proven themselves only interested in criminalizing abortion.

One who was truly interested in increasing personal responsibility would be looking to make abortion legal, safe and rare. Increasing sex ed and access to birth control and health care is how one decreases abortions. Making them illegal doesn't decrease abortions. We know that from history.


It seems it needs to be repeated over and over.

 

[Warp12]

So balanced is claiming you have a general support for Roe and you celebrate the overturning of Roe?

Clearly you didn't read the part where I said I was done with caring about a balanced approach...even though it was in what you quoted. Like, even in the same sentence with your highlighted portion.

Yes, i have moved on to loudly celebrating this defeat for pro-choice advocates. It's quite liberating to just sit back and watch the left suffer, I must say.