SCOTUS leak suggests Roe v. Wade to be overturned
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would be surprised if 30% of the people in this thread really understood what "overturning Roe v. Wade" means, I guarantee even less of the general population does. Which makes a poll like that pretty useless. If you asked if states should be allowed to decide their own abortion laws, you probably get a more accurate picture of things.
Humanity. Society in the future will inevitably reach the point where people look back on abortion the same way we look back at the infanticide rampant through history. There are very few situations left where society considers killing people an appropriate solution to problems, and as we are increasingly capable of keeping people alive, the excuses for the remaining few things aren't holding up anymore.
Given how badly over population is going to strain resources as time goes on, I find that notion doubtful.
Yeah, pretty sure the future is gonna look less kindly on forcing people to be medical equipment.
What an absolute load of shit. You think this is meant to preserve life? From the party that celebrates executions and gave us "stand your ground" laws? So where are all the Republican-led infant healthcare initiatives and child-care programs? There are none, because nothing about this is about "preserving life"- it's about control, about getting to decide who lives and who dies. Because Republicans crave that power.
Overpopulation is by far the dumbest thing people worry about.
Pretty sure the present looks a lot more kindly on societies that expect parents to be responsible for their children than the ones that abandon infants on the street.
It only progress when there is an alternative.
Like, you go Brave New World and genetically modify people so they can't be pregnant until 18. Or fetuses get teleported into maturation tube at conception. You could even do something crazy like UBI for mother's (MBI maybe.) That one might be a bit too far fetched
Until then, it will be like what we ask of the army, killing that is necessary until some alternative comes along. And no, even if Roe v Wade, the fetuses will still die. It just wont be legal. Or they will reach maturity and just die then.
So, no, this is not progress. This is just kicking the can down the road until we find a real solution. This is like antebellum, but for controlling women. It offers zero solution and will be destructive to society
Which is not what abortion is, and if you think so, you have some reading to do.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
In your mind what exactly is the difference between an abortion and a plan B pill exactly? Just curious.
The CHIP program was initially passed in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It was cosponsored by a Republican and a Democrat, and nearly every House Republican voted for it, about 3/4 of Democrats voted against. The most recent reauthorization of CHIP happened under Trump with nearly unanimous Republican support again, and again there was organized opposition from Democrats. Democrats opposed these for broader political reasons, not opposition to CHIP specifically, but since it's large Republican majorities keeping the CHIP program running most of the time, I'm gonna point to it as the obvious answer to where the Republican-led child healthcare initiatives are.
I have no doubt you didn't see that one coming.
Abortion is not necessary. Birth is a reasonable alternative in nearly every case.
Abortion is people killing their children. No amount of reading is going to change that.
Abortion is opting out of blood and tissue donation. Bodily autonomy and all that
Yes, that causes people to die, but unless you're for government mandated organ harvesting it's unfair to place the burden on only one segment of the population.
C'mon, everybody starts with two kidneys, what's the problem? Saves lives don't you know
I'm pretty sure I don't look down hard on people when they know they can't look after kids and thus take responsibility for that. Not having kids is a very responsible thing to do if you arent responsible enough to look after them
What you are proposing is forcing parents to have kids. You are NOT proposing that they look after them. You are making sure abandonment happens more common
So no, I'm probably not going to look down on parents over state mandated births. I'm going to looking down on the state that mandates it
But then, that's the whole point of this decision isn't it. To legally make people be downtrodden. It certainly isn't going to help the parents or the children
Becuase you prefer to see them die as a child rather than a fetus?
That's wierd but sure
Awfully cavalier of people saying that kids shouldn't take hormones to then force children to permanently change their bodies by going through pregnancy
Super bad if the change is voluntary, but if the government is forcing it that's all good. Teens only make rational decisions when they're getting pregnant, apparently
Super bad if the change is voluntary, but if the government is forcing it that's all good. Teens only make rational decisions when they're getting pregnant, apparently
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Yeah, abortion is the responsible choice if you don't have the means or the will to take care of a child. It is LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE of abandoning infants on the street.
Would it? Are there really that many women who deeply care about abortion access but consistently vote GOP and would now consider voting democrat (bonus point, they need to be in the right state for it to even matters)? Nobody can claim that the GOP didn't make it very clear this is what they were pushing for. I think the only downside for the GOP is that the more they restrict abortion the less they can use it as a political rallying goal.
Overall I think this is a small win for the GOP, abortion will still be legal in democrat state so they'll still be able to raise a big stinker about it (until hey can actually gain control of senate/congress and president, at which point who knows) and they can claim that they actually achieve their aim which might actually convince people who don't care about abortion.
Well it could drive up turnout of people who aren't republicans, but rarely voted before. The 2020 election had one of the highest turnouts in American history, and it was still only ~66% of the voting population.