• 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.
Bob001 said:
Suddenly said:
More like impossible, and the current court would strike it down anyway.
.....
Click to expand...
I don't think you could assume that. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a law regarding abortion.
Click to expand...


All it takes is a single case bubbling up to the SCOTUS that ends up with an opinion making fetal personhood explicit & then all bets are off.

ETA. Or just because we said so. That's also a possibility for this court.
 
Bob001 said:
I just listened to a TV interview with a young woman nattering about how wonderful it will be when Roe is overturned. When the interviewer asked her if there shouldn't at least be an exception for rape or incest, she said "birth certificates don't say how a baby was conceived. All life is precious...." etc. Question: How and why do young women buy into this nonsense? That's not "the patriarchy" controlling women; that's women doing it to themselves.
Click to expand...

Why is that nonsense? It's rather more coherent than trying to make exceptions. If abortion is wrong because the life of a fetus has intrinsic value (and not, say, because we want to breed more soldiers for our future army or some other social engineering policy ala China), then she's right, it has intrinsic value regardless of how it was conceived. Conversely, abortion only makes sense if you think a fetus does not have intrinsic value worthy of protection, so if you think it doesn't have intrinsic value, then no exception is necessary in order to have an abortion, and you can get an abortion regardless of how the fetus was conceived.

And I also don't see how whether or not a fetus has intrinsic value worthy of protection is an issue of feminism or patriarchy or any of that, or why your views on that should be tied to your sex. If you're making that decision solely on the basis of convenience to yourself, then you're just selfish.
 
Bob001 said:
I just listened to a TV interview with a young woman nattering about how wonderful it will be when Roe is overturned. When the interviewer asked her if there shouldn't at least be an exception for rape or incest, she said "birth certificates don't say how a baby was conceived. All life is precious...." etc. Question: How and why do young women buy into this nonsense? That's not "the patriarchy" controlling women; that's women doing it to themselves.
Click to expand...

Grooming...
 
Ziggurat said:
Why is that nonsense? It's rather more coherent than trying to make exceptions. If abortion is wrong because the life of a fetus has intrinsic value (and not, say, because we want to breed more soldiers for our future army or some other social engineering policy ala China), then she's right, it has intrinsic value regardless of how it was conceived. Conversely, abortion only makes sense if you think a fetus does not have intrinsic value worthy of protection, so if you think it doesn't have intrinsic value, then no exception is necessary in order to have an abortion, and you can get an abortion regardless of how the fetus was conceived.

And I also don't see how whether or not a fetus has intrinsic value worthy of protection is an issue of feminism or patriarchy or any of that, or why your views on that should be tied to your sex. If you're making that decision solely on the basis of convenience to yourself, then you're just selfish.
Click to expand...

"I'm sorry would you be so kind as to have THE ENTIRE ABORTION DEBATE again for my benefit? I totally won't play obtuse I promise."
 
Meadmaker said:
A thought occurred to me. Obviously, we don't know who the leaker was and whether they were for or against the pending decision, but I can thing af another motivation for wanting to leak the document.


I don't know what happens, legally, when Roe is overturned. Back when the opinion was issued, the opinion overturned law in all 50 states. At the time, there were various levels of restriction in various places. In some states, abortion was basically legal, and in some states completely illegal, but Roe affected every state somehow.

So, exactly what will be the legal status of abortion in states when this 50 year old decision is overturned? Does 50 year old legislation suddenly spring back to life? During those 50 years, abortion has become much more accepted and indeed taken for granted. Will abortion suddenly become illegal in states where abortion rights have strong support?

Perhaps the leaker wanted to give a heads up to legislators that they should get to work revising state laws to keep abortion legal after Roe is officially overturned. It's just speculation, obviously.
Click to expand...

From https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-whitmer-suit/9624277002/
If Roe is overturned, experts have said Michigan likely will revert back to a 1931 law, known as Act 328, that makes abortion a felony in the state, with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
Why is that nonsense? It's rather more coherent than trying to make exceptions. If abortion is wrong because the life of a fetus has intrinsic value (and not, say, because we want to breed more soldiers for our future army or some other social engineering policy ala China), then she's right, it has intrinsic value regardless of how it was conceived. Conversely, abortion only makes sense if you think a fetus does not have intrinsic value worthy of protection, so if you think it doesn't have intrinsic value, then no exception is necessary in order to have an abortion, and you can get an abortion regardless of how the fetus was conceived.
Click to expand...

This seems a bit black and white or false dichotomy-ish. Most people in society seem to act as if an embryo has some intrinsic value, but less than an fully formed human person, and that the intrinsic value of the embryo increases as it becomes more fully formed.

So abortion makes sense because the embryo has less intrinsic value than the mother does. But abortion can face some limitations because the embryo has some value, albeit less than the mother.

That said, many pro-choice people don't make that argument and instead seem to argue that an embryo has no intrinsic value. The false dichotomy is reinforced when the social argument is driven by the motivated edges of society - but that false dichotomy is nonetheless not reflective of the beliefs of most people in our culture.
 
lomiller said:
Grooming...
Click to expand...

This is a strange claim, given that it's frequently in the interest of sexual abusers to have their victims get abortions if impregnated. Outlawing abortion doesn't make sense as a sexual predator tactic.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is a strange claim, given that it's frequently in the interest of sexual abusers to have their victims get abortions if impregnated. Outlawing abortion doesn't make sense as a sexual predator tactic.
Click to expand...

More generally it's term used to describe the practice of indoctrinating impressionable youngsters into accepting the sexual and reproductive proclivities of the groomer. It seems pretty obvious that's happened and is happening extensively on the religious right
 
Ziggurat said:
This is a strange claim, given that it's frequently in the interest of sexual abusers to have their victims get abortions if impregnated. Outlawing abortion doesn't make sense as a sexual predator tactic.
Click to expand...

Fine then "indoctrinating" stop trying find new things that aren't the topic to talk about.
 
lomiller said:
More generally it's term used to describe the practice of indoctrinating impressionable youngsters into accepting the sexual and reproductive proclivities of the groomer. It seems pretty obvious that's happened and is happening extensively on the religious right
Click to expand...

I find it strange to label "not killing babies" as a sexual proclivity. That would mean "killing babies" is also a sexual proclivity.

Maybe you're right.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Fine then "indoctrinating" stop trying find new things that aren't the topic to talk about.
Click to expand...

That won't do, since basically any transmission of a set of values is indoctrination, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. You've got to come up with some way of portraying the anti-abortion position as inherently evil, that's the whole point.
 
Meadmaker said:
If the leaker did anything illegal, having the FBI hunt them down seems reasonable. If it's just an ethics violoation, that's a different story. I really have no idea if any laws are broken by this sort of thing. I just know I've never heard of it happening.


I've always kind of wondered how this all works. How many people had access to the document? Could the leaker have been one of the justices themselves?

At any rate, I don't think it will do irreparable harm, so it's interesting that Ingraham was going on about it. She must be assuming that the leaker was either one of the three "no" votes, or someone who worked for them.

And yeah, I'm discussing the not very important part of the story, too. This is huge news with so many ramifications.
Click to expand...
And should the FBI investigate if the legality of the leak is unclear?

Wired: Is Leaking a Supreme Court Opinion a Crime? The Law Is Far From Clear
THE LEAK OF a seismic draft opinion from the US Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade has somehow managed overnight to elicit roughly equal outpourings of anger from the right and left: The left has rallied to decry a decision that would overturn a 50-year-old cornerstone of reproductive rights. Conservatives, despite the historic victory the ruling would represent for their side, have meanwhile targeted their political outrage at a far more specific individual: the leaker.
Click to expand...

I don't have an answer but I do find it telling the right is ignoring the 'victory' in the fight they have used as a single issue voter draw since Reagan.
 
Ziggurat said:
That won't do, since basically any transmission of a set of values is indoctrination, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. You've got to come up with some way of portraying the anti-abortion position as inherently evil, that's the whole point.
Click to expand...

There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to protect unborn children. Pretty much everyone wants to protect unborn children. The problem comes with implementation. The very nature of pregnancy means that voluntary abortion means to have to make a choice between the unborn child’s right to life or the right of the woman to control her own body. There is no wiggling out of that one.

If you chose to protect the unborn child over the rights of the woman, well, the shear practicalities of that choice quickly lead to things like pregnancy tests at customs checkpoints, interstate travel bans and miscarriage police.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't have an answer but I do find it telling the right is ignoring the 'victory' in the fight they have used as a single issue voter draw since Reagan.
Click to expand...

It's not really a victory until it actually becomes the ruling of the court, which it isn't yet. There's a strong element of "don't count your chickens" here, that's why the focus isn't yet on this being a victory.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And should the FBI investigate if the legality of the leak is unclear?

Wired: Is Leaking a Supreme Court Opinion a Crime? The Law Is Far From Clear


I don't have an answer but I do find it telling the right is ignoring the 'victory' in the fight they have used as a single issue voter draw since Reagan.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

In my mind, if a law wasn't clearly broken, the law wasn't broken. If there's no evidence of a crime, there should be no investigation looking for one. It seems, based on what the article said, that if the person who leaked the document had legal access to the document, then it isn't a crime.

That whole "thing of value" clause has been misused horribly in recent years trying to prosecute people for things that aren't crimes. I don't think there's been a whole lot of success, though.
 
Warp12 said:
I will still be very surprised if Roe is overturned.

If it is overturned, and many states further their abortion restrictions (as is expected), I will be interested to see if that actually drives people to be more responsible with their utilization of proactive birth control measures.

Very interesting "leak".
Click to expand...
Yeah right, all those rapes and incest pregnancies will be stopped by more responsible birth control. Then there are women who desperately want a child but due to medical problems need an abortion.*

And all the rest of the unwanted pregnancies surely are just the result of carelessness. Do you believe the lie that women choose abortion for birth control? :rolleyes:


*A woman here in WA State who wanted a child found herself with massive bleeding mid-pregnancy. Despite the fact the fetus was doomed, the woman was in a Catholic hospital and the Bishop who was making decisions for the hospital would not OK the abortion she needed until the fetal heart stopped. The delay resulted in complications that required a hysterectomy. So this woman who wanted her pregnancy ended up not just losing her first fetus, she lost the ability to ever get pregnant again.

That's what ignorant practicing-medicine-without-a-license legislators cause when they write these ignorant laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom