Abortion

[Blitz24]

Does a gun now have a choice to abort its bullets now that guns have more freedom than women?

 

[Joey D]

The entirety of abortion did not need to be under state control (ie: overturning roe), just like every detail of what constitutes murder or rape does not need to be under state control (and should not be).

I'm not so sure it shouldn't be under state control though, especially because abortion laws weren't codified. The Women's Health Protection Act would've done this, but it ultimately failed in the Senate. The same could be said about the Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama said he would sign then reneged on it and said it wasn't a high priority. If it had been codified under the Necessary And Proper Clause, which many laws are, then it would likely have stood up to the challenge. As of right now though, it seems like with how the series of events unfolded over the last 50 years, Roe had Constitutional grounds to be overturned.

I freely admit I could be off base here since I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means.

We don't give full rights to children, or many adults for that matter. I don't see how it's remotely viable to give a full compliment of rights to a fetus.

I don't think you need to give a fetus full rights, but if it's classified as a person then you need to give it some rights since it would be an American citizen. Personally, I don't think a fetus should get rights until it's able to survive outside a women's body, and even then if it's attached to the women's body while being viable outside of it, I'm still not sure you give it rights.

 

[Tornado]

I completely understand. But here are some things I'm trying to keep in mind today. The supreme court is currently under minority rule. The country, "the people" are not represented by the backward practices of the supreme court today, and that's because, mainly, of damage that Trump and the GOP did while he was president.

Trump was elected by a minority of the country, and that harm is still being carried out today by people put in power by that minority. But it's not what the people want, and that will be reflected in state law. Yes, Texas, Louisianna, and friggin Missouri (pronounced misery), are going to get weird. But provided that the supreme court doesn't go further extreme, most state laws are going to reflect more sane people.

Well, of course, assuming the bloodbath the Democrats have set themselves up for isn't as bad as it is looking and abortion isn't banned nationwide in 8 months or so.

 

[PeterJB]

Flipping through the 27 amendments, I'm not seeing anything that relates to abortion specifically. At the time it was written abortion would have just been one of the many social taboos that were given little to no consideration in political discourse, so I'm just wondering when people argue in either direction with abortion laws regarding whether they are or aren't constitutional, what specifically they're using to justify that? Maybe the 9th? (if I'm interpreting it correctly)

 

[Joey D]

Flipping through the 27 amendments, I'm not seeing anything that relates to abortion specifically. At the time it was written abortion would have just been one of the many social taboos that were given little to no consideration in political discourse, so I'm just wondering when people argue in either direction with abortion laws regarding whether they are or aren't constitutional, what specifically they're using to justify that? Maybe the 9th? (if I'm interpreting it correctly)

I believe the legality of abortion is connected with the 14th Amendment.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't believe the abortion issue will be decided in the future by the supreme court after today, regardless of that court's future makeup. It will likely be a state by state slugfest that will likely motivate centrist and left voters for years to come, just as it has been for the right since RvW was decided. A state like Texas could see a vehement reaction to this on the ground in local and state elections. I think abortion was a better issue for conservatives when it was untouchable. It's been touched now, the blowback is going to be enormous.

 

[NotThePrez]

I completely understand. But here are some things I'm trying to keep in mind today. The supreme court is currently under minority rule. The country, "the people" are not represented by the backward practices of the supreme court today, and that's because, mainly, of damage that Trump and the GOP did while he was president.

Trump was elected by a minority of the country, and that harm is still being carried out today by people put in power by that minority. But it's not what the people want, and that will be reflected in state law. Yes, Texas, Louisianna, and friggin Missouri (pronounced misery), are going to get weird. But provided that the supreme court doesn't go further extreme, most state laws are going to reflect more sane people.

See, the thing is is that I know you're objectively correct, and I genuinely want to fully believe you. However, between this, the Dem's failure to actually hold the GoP to their respective failures, the Dems failure to give Progressive America strong and palpable reasons to go out and vote, and Justice Thomas advocating for a "second look" into the rulings that allow same-sex marriage, contraceptives' (actually WTF), and privacy in the bedroom, it's hard for me not to loose faith in the possibility of things turning around, and staying that way.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm still going to do what I can to combat these changes (well, as best as I can living in this horrid state). I still plan on voting, staying informed and whatnot. But things can get worse, and everything that's being shown so far displays that the GoP is more than happy to force things to get worse if it further secures their position, even if they are the minority.

We're going from "Land of the Free" (even though that wasn't totally correct to being with), to "Land of the Free, location dependent." At least for me, that's not exactly great.

 

[McLaren]

We're going from "Land of the Free" (even though that wasn't totally correct to being with), to "Land of Christ the Free, location dependent." At least for me, that's not exactly great.

Fixed that for you.


Honestly, since it was brought up, my consideration to leave this country looks more & more tempting.

 

[pokemonfan58]

So now that Roe V. Wade has unfortunately been overturned, what does this mean for rape victims? Are they really going to be forced now to put up with unwanted pregnancy if abortion is banned by their state which I have heard rape exemptions are also banned in states with abortion laws.

I wonder if someone can provide documents of the abortion laws in states where the exemptions that i've mentioned are outlawed and detail the parts where the exemption bans are mentioned.

Fixed that for you.


Honestly, since it was brought up, my consideration to leave this country looks more & more tempting.

Abortion banned and rape crimes increased, all in favor of sky daddy not sending us to hell after death. 🤣 Seriously the GOP and the Republican party needs to learn the lesson that religion needs to stay out of politics in certain issues like Abortion.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Fixed that for you.


Honestly, since it was brought up, my consideration to leave this country looks more & more tempting.

Vancouver, BC is getting harder and harder to ignore.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Vancouver, BC is getting harder and harder to ignore.

I'd move to Australia in a heartbeat if it wasn't so hard to obtain citizenship there.

 

[Blitz24]

So now that Roe V. Wade has unfortunately been overturned, what does this mean for rape victims? Are they really going to be forced now to put up with unwanted pregnancy if abortion is banned by their state which I have heard rape exemptions are also banned in states with abortion laws.

AFAIK, yep. They are literally victim-blaming someone for being sexually assaulted and making women simultaneously at fault AND non-human.

 

[McLaren]

So now that Roe V. Wade has unfortunately been overturned, what does this mean for rape victims? Are they really going to be forced now to put up with unwanted pregnancy if abortion is banned by their state which I have heard rape exemptions are also banned in states with abortion laws.

I wonder if someone can provide documents of the abortion laws in states where the exemptions that i've mentioned are outlawed and detail the parts where the exemption bans are mentioned.

My state of Texas?

Ya better believe it, partner. We only allow dem der abortions if the mom will die or impairment of bodily function. Rape or incest, they better keep dat der miracle of Gawd. But donchu worry, ol Abbott has promised we gonna eliminate all rapists, a totally realistic & completely believable task.


Edit* It's pretty humorous as someone with an American exposure to Boris Johnson to see that apparently, even he said this was a big step back to overturn Roe V Wade.

 

[TexRex]

Abbott has promised we gonna eliminate all rapists

Republican wages war on Republicans.

They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not so sure it shouldn't be under state control though, especially because abortion laws weren't codified.

I'm not sure what that has to do with it. Again, it wouldn't be acceptable to leave murder or rape up to the states.

Roe had Constitutional grounds to be overturned.

The due process argument is quite a bit more compelling than the argument to the contrary. So I disagree.

I don't think you need to give a fetus full rights, but if it's classified as a person then you need to give it some rights since it would be an American citizen. Personally, I don't think a fetus should get rights until it's able to survive outside a women's body, and even then if it's attached to the women's body while being viable outside of it, I'm still not sure you give it rights.

Explain to me how it's ok for Texas to recognize something as an American citizen (the country Texas is part of) and for Colorado to not recognize that thing as an American citizen (the same country Colorado is part of).

 

[Joey D]

'm not sure what that has to do with it. Again, it wouldn't be acceptable to leave murder or rape up to the states.

Right, it's not acceptable to leave murder or rape up to the states because those fit with the Necessary And Proper Clause. Laws against that need to exist in order for society and the government to function. Abortion is a bit different. It's a medical procedure and there's nothing spelled out regarding that in the Constitution. Abortion legality isn't necessary for society or government to function either so it can't really be applied under the Necessary And Proper Clause which opens the door for so many other laws.

There also isn't a federal law allowing abortion. There are laws that dictate what wasn't isn't legal with regard to abortion (Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act), but nothing codified to say abortions are legal. Had what Roe v. Wade allowed been codified, it would've been a different story. Since there isn't a federal law, I do believe it should be turfed to the states to decide under the Tenth Amendment.

Explain to me how it's ok for Texas to recognize something as an American citizen (the country Texas is part of) and for Colorado to not recognize that thing as an American citizen (the same country Colorado is part of).

There isn't. I was talking about a federal level recognizing a fetus as a citizen and whether or not they should be granted rights allowed by the Constitution.

 

[TexRex]

Dick's Sporting Goods is committing up to $4,000 for expenses to employees, spouses and dependents who live in states that have made abortion illegal to travel out-of-state for abortive care and the incels are not happy about it.

 

[Jezza819]

I think @TexRex needs to add another line to his signature.

Why do Republicans hate women?

 

[TexRex]

I think @TexRex needs to add another line to his signature.

Why do Republicans hate women?

It's a little clumsy with both.

 

[Danoff]

It's a medical procedure and there's nothing spelled out regarding that in the Constitution.

There is. Not being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There is no due process in banning abortion. A non-criminal, having not been found guilty of criminal acts, is being deprived of life, liberty, AND property via banning abortions.

Abortion legality isn't necessary for society or government to function either so it can't really be applied under the Necessary And Proper Clause which opens the door for so many other laws.

Strictly speaking, very little is required for a government to function. Nazi Germany functioned.

There also isn't a federal law allowing abortion. There are laws that dictate what wasn't isn't legal with regard to abortion (Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act), but nothing codified to say abortions are legal. Had what Roe v. Wade allowed been codified, it would've been a different story. Since there isn't a federal law, I do believe it should be turfed to the states to decide under the Tenth Amendment.

Questions of human rights can't be "turfed" to the states. It's the whole point of the bill of rights.

There isn't. I was talking about a federal level recognizing a fetus as a citizen and whether or not they should be granted rights allowed by the Constitution.

A moment ago you recommended that it be turfed to the states, that's what I'm getting at with that question.

 

[TexRex]

The rat ****er lied.

 

[Zenoh]

man, i am glad I joined up here for video games and (genuinely, not a drop of sarcasm) found some decent, intelligent human beings. Carry on.

 

[TexRex]

Anticipating condemnation of criticism of the decision in Dobbs and the insistence that it deserves respect as a decision made by the Supreme Court, I'm just going to put this here.

 

[NotThePrez]

 

[TexRex]

Pot, sack of ****--same difference.

 

[McLaren]

I hope the ruling that Fox has to face the Dominion lawsuit includes every one of those lying ass "news anchors" having to be involved for all the nonsense they've spewed out.

 

[TexRex]

I hope the ruling that Fox has to face the Dominion lawsuit includes every one of those lying ass "news anchors" having to be involved for all the nonsense they've spewed out.

The Dominion lawsuit doesn't hurt Fox. If anything, it galvanizes Fox's idiot base.

The Dominion lawsuit is for Dominion. Dominion is never offering its services in the United States again. It was legitimately harmed by false claims by Republican political operatives and propagandists. Despite a total lack of substantive evidence, Dominion is poison fruit.

 

[Biggles]

So the upshot of the last couple of days: the Supreme Court rules that States Rights don't apply when it comes to their ability to impose some limitations on the right to carry guns ... but they do apply when it comes to controlling what rights women have to control their own bodies.

 

[Danoff]

So the upshot of the last couple of days: the Supreme Court rules that States Rights don't apply when it comes to their ability to impose some limitations on the right to carry guns ... but they do apply when it comes to controlling what rights women have to control their own bodies.

...and of course stuff has to be explicitly stated in the Constitution, except when it doesn't. And it matters what rules people had 200 years ago, except when it doesn't.

 

[Biggles]

I completely understand. But here are some things I'm trying to keep in mind today. The supreme court is currently under minority rule. The country, "the people" are not represented by the backward practices of the supreme court today, and that's because, mainly, of damage that Trump and the GOP did while he was president.

Trump was elected by a minority of the country, and that harm is still being carried out today by people put in power by that minority. But it's not what the people want, and that will be reflected in state law. Yes, Texas, Louisianna, and friggin Missouri (pronounced misery), are going to get weird. But provided that the supreme court doesn't go further extreme, most state laws are going to reflect more sane people.

Well, according to the Economist The United States is up there with Colombia (and France and Italy). It could be worse, I guess.