SCOTUS leak suggests Roe v. Wade to be overturned
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Probably just amend the Mann Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mann_act which has been done a number of times. States may have something similar but I doubt it as ensuring or limiting traffic between states is a Constitutional and Federal issue.
I did not expect this. While I think Roe a horrible legal decision (I doubt the Framers intended to allow one to do illegal things in private), I support a woman's right to choose during the first 3 months. But Roe allowed Republicans to talk a big game and then not actually deliver anything. Power without responsibility.
Roe gets over-turned, which it should be, this may be a life line to the currently floundering Democratic party. People will issue vote on this.
I see earlier in this thread posts stating the Conservative Justices, when nominees, lied about their position on Roe. In truth, they never should have been asked. There isn't supposed to be an issue litmus test to get on the court: competence and adherence to the law as they understand it is what should matter. One also should not reveal how they would decide a thing that could be a controversy presented before them. They should not have a decision ready for such a controversy. They are to listen to the 2 sides argue and then make a decision. Even if, for instance, Barrett leans towards over-turning Roe, she should know she might be persuaded, in court by Roe's defender, to uphold it.
It's *obviously* "yes, the dad should be allowed to choose". Like, blatantly. Didn't think I needed to state the obvious. I'm just wondering why you stop literally there when there's *more* kids you could save, because it's apparently no longer negligent homicide if you aren't a nearby blood relation.
Baby Scoop Era - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Beginning in the 1940s and 1950s, illegitimacy began to be defined in terms of psychological deficits on the part of the mother.[6] At the same time, a liberalization of sexual morals combined with restrictions on access to birth control led to an increase in premarital pregnancies.[7] The dominant psychological and social work view was that the large majority of unmarried mothers were better off being separated by adoption from their newborn babies.[8] According to Mandell (2007), "In most cases, adoption was presented to the mothers as the only option and little or no effort was made to help the mothers keep and raise the children".
Well shit, we should probably stop speedrunning the early 20th century
" Nothing that is being done will make people think it so heinous to stop abortion. "
Why is a lifeguard on duty liable for injuries, but the one that left for lunch isn't? Why is a parent responsible if a child is being starved and not the next door neighbor? You're asking dumb questions to avoid the stance you're taking.
You know that theoretical dad is a sack of crap that shouldn't be allowed in polite society, but you won't allow yourself to say it because it would conflict with your stance on abortion.
Sorry guys. That might be our bad. We no longer have the Catholic Church stealing babies to provide a supply of good white children to sell to Americans.
Baby Scoop Era - Wikipedia
Beginning in the 1940s and 1950s, illegitimacy began to be defined in terms of psychological deficits on the part of the mother.[6] At the same time, a liberalization of sexual morals combined with restrictions on access to birth control led to an increase in premarital pregnancies.[7] The dominant psychological and social work view was that the large majority of unmarried mothers were better off being separated by adoption from their newborn babies.[8] According to Mandell (2007), "In most cases, adoption was presented to the mothers as the only option and little or no effort was made to help the mothers keep and raise the children".
Well shit, we should probably stop speedrunning the early 20th century
Here's an idea. Since the Republicans want no exceptions to their abortion bans for rape, incest and human trafficking, perhaps it's time to tighten up some other laws regarding fatherhood.
For example, in Idaho, they want to make it legal for a rapist's family to sue to stop an abortion for his rape victim. So let's make it the law that if they do, then they are also on the hook for financially supporting that child from conception to adulthood. Or make it a law that if you miss even one childcare payment, they can go ahead and garnish your wages.
Naturally, I expect some blowback to this idea from the usual suspects crying that this won't be fair to men. I say too bad, because it isn't fair to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she never wanted. If women are forced to give birth like brood mares, then the men who donated sperm to the cause should be on the hook for raising that kid too.
For example, in Idaho, they want to make it legal for a rapist's family to sue to stop an abortion for his rape victim. So let's make it the law that if they do, then they are also on the hook for financially supporting that child from conception to adulthood. Or make it a law that if you miss even one childcare payment, they can go ahead and garnish your wages.
Naturally, I expect some blowback to this idea from the usual suspects crying that this won't be fair to men. I say too bad, because it isn't fair to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she never wanted. If women are forced to give birth like brood mares, then the men who donated sperm to the cause should be on the hook for raising that kid too.
Last edited:
Yes. I meant nothing that is being done. I.e. the thing being done is getting rid of Roe and all the cascading consequences. This will not help
They keep saying the quiet parts out loud.
Baby Scoop Era - Wikipedia
Beginning in the 1940s and 1950s, illegitimacy began to be defined in terms of psychological deficits on the part of the mother.[6] At the same time, a liberalization of sexual morals combined with restrictions on access to birth control led to an increase in premarital pregnancies.[7] The dominant psychological and social work view was that the large majority of unmarried mothers were better off being separated by adoption from their newborn babies.[8] According to Mandell (2007), "In most cases, adoption was presented to the mothers as the only option and little or no effort was made to help the mothers keep and raise the children".
Well shit, we should probably stop speedrunning the early 20th century
So, during the pandemic, about 120 000 families became lost both parents. Over quarter million lost one parent, so I hope the last one is good. Note: I wrote families, as the number of kids vary. But taking an average family would mean doubling thosr numbers
There is already a huge over supply of kids to adopt. This is the stupidest time to make this argument, even if it was valid
IMO, if there is domestic abuse, the abusing parent doesn't get a say. The caveat being if the abusive person is the one that's pregnant
"You secretly agree with me but just won't say it" is the absolute bottom tier of arguments, well done
Whether or not I end up liking somebody is utterly irrelevant to the idea that the government should not have the power to force them to be medical equipment. I just find it massively weird that your "pro-life" stance doesn't extend to, say, the unrelated 3rd party who was also there and could also save that life. I mean. It tracks with the standard conservative argument against social services I guess, but still
Why *not* make a list with everybody's information on it, so that the government can provide a working kidney or chunk of liver to everybody that needs it? Would save thousands of lives a year. Why draw the line at bodily autonomy *there*?
Last edited:
Why not make every single human equally carry the responsibilities of parenthood for every child? You do understand you are describing communism, right?
Well, why not?
It takes a village to raise a child. How can you justify your supposed "pro-life" stance when it stops existing at such an arbitrary point? Do you truly, as a Catholic and American, have zero obligation to help your fellow man if you aren't personally related to them?
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks nothing can travel faster than the speed of light has never seen how fast a conservative can go from "babies are precious" to "can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em".
I disagree on two counts.
The US system for the appointment of judges is politicised, and one has to believe politicised by intent. The judiciary have independence (in their way), but their appointment by the executive and legislature means that they should be approximately representative of public will. Although, of course, stacking the court then becomes deeply problematic, which leads me to my second issue.
As you say, "adherence to the law as they understand it." But this is not really objective, it's subjective. And it's political. Someone politically ideological is basically guaranteed to interpret law in a manner friendly to their political ideology.
As some might say about Roe v. Wade and is equally true of scrapping Roe v. Wade, judges can find justifications to make pretty much any old shit up. The very fact a Supreme Court can reverse what a previous Supreme Court has ruled is effectively proof of that. Thus where you say "understand it", I would suggest that is at best euphemism, and "what they want it to be" is more accurate, because their understanding of law is directed by their motivations.
Which leads me back to why US judges should be asked questions on how they would rule on hot topics: it tells us what their motivations are, and what political ends they are going to serve. And to go back to the issue of stacking the court, a stacked court, being unrepresentative of the population (and quite possibly even the bulk of the nation's judges and legal opinion), is going to cause considerable ill-feeling and resentment. Alito's majority brief describes Roe v. Wade as causing the USA a great deal of harm. It's a pathetic and risible claim because reversing it, particularly by the way the court was stacked to do so - is very likely to cause just as much if not more harm.
It's effectively a practical application of Quantum Superposition. Both states exist at the same time, and vast areas of mental space can be circumvented via the "pencil pushed through a folded piece of paper" trick