BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Greg Abbott just signed a 6 week abortion ban, why should we as makes care so much about female reproductive rights

The females have the right to use the morning after pill, condoms, birth control and adoptions are the highest levels since 1979, there isn't a need for abortion anymore in a high tech society right now

[Person Man]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

This line of thinking is so disgusting.

It's a high-risk, high-reward situation. The risk being that this is the start of either some new "War on Abortion" that ushers in a police state or will be that thing that causes most people to take things into their own hands.
The potential upside risk is that after a cycle or two, this issue drops off the national radar through a reasonable compromise. Maybe a certain number of states agree to keep it and certain number don't and all states have to have certain restrictions or exceptions.

[Hope For A New Era]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

This line of thinking is so disgusting.

I'll bet you every cent I have it's how the Republicans are thinking. Stop unilaterally disarming and save democracy!

[Kingpoleon]

The point is that some people can’t emphasize with the notion that you are a parent immediately after having unprotected sex. Should this be a responsibility issue? Sure. If we go the right way about it but it’s just really silly to me that someone who swears to God that there’s only two genders, not just two sexes (even if that’s even qualified by chromosomal disorders that people like this tend to forget about unless they are found in a fetus), wants us to believe that a being that hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet needs a social security number simply because it’s metabolizing and has human DNA.

”Hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet”? Do you think abortions happen before pregnancy?

[Person Man]

The point is that some people can’t emphasize with the notion that you are a parent immediately after having unprotected sex. Should this be a responsibility issue? Sure. If we go the right way about it but it’s just really silly to me that someone who swears to God that there’s only two genders, not just two sexes (even if that’s even qualified by chromosomal disorders that people like this tend to forget about unless they are found in a fetus), wants us to believe that a being that hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet needs a social security number simply because it’s metabolizing and has human DNA.

”Hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet”? Do you think abortions happen before pregnancy?

That's what traditionalists and nationalists say about certain forms of birth control or stem cell research. Those are "abortions" that happen before pregnancy. This is because there is technically a "conceptus" but there is no pregnancy because there has not yet been implantation.

[7,052,770]

The point is that some people can’t emphasize with the notion that you are a parent immediately after having unprotected sex. Should this be a responsibility issue? Sure. If we go the right way about it but it’s just really silly to me that someone who swears to God that there’s only two genders, not just two sexes (even if that’s even qualified by chromosomal disorders that people like this tend to forget about unless they are found in a fetus), wants us to believe that a being that hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet needs a social security number simply because it’s metabolizing and has human DNA.

”Hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet”? Do you think abortions happen before pregnancy?

Only around half of fertilized eggs even implant into a uterus. Birth control pills may lower those odds, it hasn't been proven, but their primary purpose is to stop ovulation altogether, so it would be basically impossible to test this idea.

[Person Man]

The point is that some people can’t emphasize with the notion that you are a parent immediately after having unprotected sex. Should this be a responsibility issue? Sure. If we go the right way about it but it’s just really silly to me that someone who swears to God that there’s only two genders, not just two sexes (even if that’s even qualified by chromosomal disorders that people like this tend to forget about unless they are found in a fetus), wants us to believe that a being that hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet needs a social security number simply because it’s metabolizing and has human DNA.

”Hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet”? Do you think abortions happen before pregnancy?

Only around half of fertilized eggs even implant into a uterus. Birth control pills may lower those odds, it hasn't been proven, but their primary purpose is to stop ovulation altogether, so it would be basically impossible to test this idea.

And of course there are identical and Siamese twins.

[Kingpoleon]

I've held my nieces as babies, fed, changed and burped them. Made them laugh. The choice of saving a born baby is really easy.

That you struggle to not only see that, but to condemn me and Dule is really disturbing. You're dehumanising by resorting to nothing but thought experiments with respect to human life and human experience.

I pretended to talk to my baby brother for months before he died, and ever since my mother miscarried I have had a huge and aching hole in my heart. About two years ago, I realized that this was decidedly inconsistent with claiming life begins at birth. Perhaps it would be easy for you not to feel this pain of mine, yet I cannot help but feel it. I am, in my own mind, the boy with the dead brother. Every now and then I catch a smiling face about the age he would be now, and my eyes water profusely. Within me there is a deep well of sadness for my brother, and I refuse to apologize for this. I have lost a grandmother and great-grandparents, too, and each of these great griefs is different from the others. For me, when you ask if I would rather save an embryo or a baby, these are not abstract things, but human beings which I remember dying.

(I did not “resort to nothing but thought experiments” - you are confusing me with Dule.)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1395001294088196102?s=20

[Person Man]

I've held my nieces as babies, fed, changed and burped them. Made them laugh. The choice of saving a born baby is really easy.

That you struggle to not only see that, but to condemn me and Dule is really disturbing. You're dehumanising by resorting to nothing but thought experiments with respect to human life and human experience.

I pretended to talk to my baby brother for months before he died, and ever since my mother miscarried I have had a huge and aching hole in my heart. About two years ago, I realized that this was decidedly inconsistent with claiming life begins at birth. Perhaps it would be easy for you not to feel this pain of mine, yet I cannot help but feel it. I am, in my own mind, the boy with the dead brother. Every now and then I catch a smiling face about the age he would be now, and my eyes water profusely. Within me there is a deep well of sadness for my brother, and I refuse to apologize for this. I have lost a grandmother and great-grandparents, too, and each of these great griefs is different from the others. For me, when you ask if I would rather save an embryo or a baby, these are not abstract things, but human beings which I remember dying.

(I did not “resort to nothing but thought experiments” - you are confusing me with Dule.)

But even you admit that it isn’t exactly the same and what should/do expectant mothers feel if they miscarry? That they kill their children or that if they have had miscarriages before that they should be guilted into not trying because it’s endangering a child? That sort of stuff destroys people. It’s one thing to have feelings but it’s another to think other people should be expected to feel the same way. That’s usually a thing conservatives say and that is usually on the issues that they are popular on. Most people are OK in having conversations about marijuana, abortion, public options, and police reform. People can sympathize. When you berate them for not empathizing? That’s what you call Cancel Culture.

[Kingpoleon]

But even you admit that it isn’t exactly the same and what should/do expectant mothers feel if they miscarry? That they kill their children or that if they have had miscarriages before that they should be guilted into not trying because it’s endangering a child? That sort of stuff destroys people. It’s one thing to have feelings but it’s another to think other people should be expected to feel the same way. That’s usually a thing conservatives say and that is usually on the issues that they are popular on. Most people are OK in having conversations about marijuana, abortion, public options, and police reform. People can sympathize. When you berate them for not empathizing? That’s what you call Cancel Culture.

In one sense, it is not the same - but no two deaths are the same. I did not ask you to feel exactly the same as me; I merely told a story, in response to being accused of dehumanizing people, to make sure those who disagree with me understand why I view the unborn as human. If someone were to make disparaging comments about toddlers, I would not berate them, but I might tell them my memories of my dead cousin who died as a toddler. When some people advocate euthanizing elderly unwell people, I might tell them my memories of my grandmother who had dementia.

As Chesterton tells us: “Those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.”

[soundchaser]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

[Xeuma]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

Says who?

[Person Man]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

Says who?

People who told us to “ your feelings”. There’s that. And those who said one egg + one sperm = person. End of story.  That seems pretty sterile to me. You can’t make the same argument that we just made for your side. That’s not fair.

[Kingpoleon]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

On the contrary! I assert that I think my values are superior to yours; if I did not, I would not hold my values.

I also want to legislate based off of my feelings about the barbarity of genital mutilation; my feelings about the evilness of slavery; in short, I feel very strongly in what I think ought to be legislated. You seem to be one of those who wish to dehumanize all of human life into thought experiments; to deprive an emotional world of emotion. I refuse to apologize for my tears, or that my motivation for a great deal of legislation I advocate is based off of my own life experience.

You are, in short, not disputing my point about how valuable my dead brother is to me, but insisting that it is illogical for me to grieve over him. You might as well tell me to defy gravity, for I will never apologize for grieving for my dead relatives. I would sooner cut out my own tongue than to disgrace them so.

[John Dule]

I pretended to talk to my baby brother for months before he died, and ever since my mother miscarried I have had a huge and aching hole in my heart. About two years ago, I realized that this was decidedly inconsistent with claiming life begins at birth. Perhaps it would be easy for you not to feel this pain of mine, yet I cannot help but feel it. I am, in my own mind, the boy with the dead brother. Every now and then I catch a smiling face about the age he would be now, and my eyes water profusely. Within me there is a deep well of sadness for my brother, and I refuse to apologize for this. I have lost a grandmother and great-grandparents, too, and each of these great griefs is different from the others. For me, when you ask if I would rather save an embryo or a baby, these are not abstract things, but human beings which I remember dying.

(I did not “resort to nothing but thought experiments” - you are confusing me with Dule.)

One does not need to believe a fetus is a human being in order to believe that a miscarriage is a sad thing. A miscarriage is not dissimilar to a woman finding out she is infertile-- nobody is actually dying, but the potential for life is being destroyed, which is tragic in a different way. Nature limits all of the possibilities in our lives. It's sad that some people want to be jockeys but were born too tall. It's sad that others want to be basketball players but were born too short. Thinking about what could've been is a fundamental part of the human experience, and nobody here is faulting you for that. We're just drawing a distinction between this and an actual death in the family.

I also frequently think about the siblings I never had. It makes me sad that I will never have a brother or sister to rely upon or care for. I also think about my future children, and thinking about them being harmed makes me angry and depressed. But my imaginary siblings and my hypothetical children do not exist right now. It is possible to feel deep emotions when life closes off a possibility to us without equating it with someone dying.

In short, when a fetus dies, we cry for what could have been. But when a human dies, we cry for what actually was. That is the difference.

[Person Man]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

On the contrary! I assert that I think my values are superior to yours; if I did not, I would not hold my values.

I also want to legislate based off of my feelings about the barbarity of genital mutilation; my feelings about the evilness of slavery; in short, I feel very strongly in what I think ought to be legislated. You seem to be one of those who wish to dehumanize all of human life into thought experiments; to deprive an emotional world of emotion. I refuse to apologize for my tears, or that my motivation for a great deal of legislation I advocate is based off of my own life experience.

You are, in short, not disputing my point about how valuable my dead brother is to me, but insisting that it is illogical for me to grieve over him. You might as well tell me to defy gravity, for I will never apologize for grieving for my dead relatives. I would sooner cut out my own tongue than to disgrace them so.

And while you hold your feelings above our feelings, you also hold them above the objective indisputable welfare of others. The fact that the harm  is beyond a reasonable doubt in one situation and is not in the other is also dispositive.

[Kingpoleon]

One does not need to believe a fetus is a human being in order to believe that a miscarriage is a sad thing. A miscarriage is not dissimilar to a woman finding out she is infertile-- nobody is actually dying, but the potential for life is being destroyed, which is tragic in a different way. Nature limits all of the possibilities in our lives. It's sad that some people want to be jockeys but were born too tall. It's sad that others want to be basketball players but were born too short. Thinking about what could've been is a fundamental part of the human experience, and nobody here is faulting you for that. We're just drawing a distinction between this and an actual death in the family.

I also frequently think about the siblings I never had. It makes me sad that I will never have a brother or sister to rely upon or care for. I also think about my future children, and thinking about them being harmed makes me angry and depressed. But my imaginary siblings and my hypothetical children do not exist right now. It is possible to feel deep emotions when life closes off a possibility to us without equating it with someone dying.

In short, when a fetus dies, we cry for what could have been. But when a human dies, we cry for what actually was. That is the difference.

Out of curiosity, what was my brother’s body? Was it a pig, a figment of my imagination? I saw his hands and his feet; his heartbeat had stopped, and he was a bit bloody. His brain had developed at a rate of 250,000 neurons per minute for over ten weeks. This is not the same as those later brothers and sisters I did not have - he had a body, a heart, a brain. You did not bawl over their bodies - I did over my brother. You are not a guy who, as a child, had to bury his brother - I am. You do not cry upon seeing the face of a smiling child - I often do. My brother was not a pig, nor an invisible ghost - he existed. He was real. Will you speak to a widow about your imaginary dead spouse? I know you did not feel his cold, lifeless body; I know you did not see his heartbeat as we did. Your denial of this reality is absurdly cruel; by the time I was twelve I had seen members of four generations of my family die.

My brother was not imaginary, sir. Do not compare the pain of never having a sibling to losing one, sir. My brother not only was alive by the definition of bioethicists and biologists, but he was human, sir. As long as my lungs breathe air and my heart pumps blood I will not halt my testimony on this matter.

[Xeuma]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

On the contrary! I assert that I think my values are superior to yours; if I did not, I would not hold my values.

I also want to legislate based off of my feelings about the barbarity of genital mutilation; my feelings about the evilness of slavery; in short, I feel very strongly in what I think ought to be legislated. You seem to be one of those who wish to dehumanize all of human life into thought experiments; to deprive an emotional world of emotion. I refuse to apologize for my tears, or that my motivation for a great deal of legislation I advocate is based off of my own life experience.

You are, in short, not disputing my point about how valuable my dead brother is to me, but insisting that it is illogical for me to grieve over him. You might as well tell me to defy gravity, for I will never apologize for grieving for my dead relatives. I would sooner cut out my own tongue than to disgrace them so.

And while you hold your feelings above our feelings, you also hold them above the objective indisputable welfare of others. The fact that the harm  is beyond a reasonable doubt in one situation and is not in the other is also dispositive.

Objective and indisputable, according to...?

[Person Man]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

On the contrary! I assert that I think my values are superior to yours; if I did not, I would not hold my values.

I also want to legislate based off of my feelings about the barbarity of genital mutilation; my feelings about the evilness of slavery; in short, I feel very strongly in what I think ought to be legislated. You seem to be one of those who wish to dehumanize all of human life into thought experiments; to deprive an emotional world of emotion. I refuse to apologize for my tears, or that my motivation for a great deal of legislation I advocate is based off of my own life experience.

You are, in short, not disputing my point about how valuable my dead brother is to me, but insisting that it is illogical for me to grieve over him. You might as well tell me to defy gravity, for I will never apologize for grieving for my dead relatives. I would sooner cut out my own tongue than to disgrace them so.

And while you hold your feelings above our feelings, you also hold them above the objective indisputable welfare of others. The fact that the harm  is beyond a reasonable doubt in one situation and is not in the other is also dispositive.

Objective and indisputable, according to...?

You dispute that many lives will be disrupted by a sudden massive change in abortion policy?

[John Dule]

Out of curiosity, what was my brother’s body? Was it a pig, a figment of my imagination? I saw his hands and his feet; his heartbeat had stopped, and he was a bit bloody. His brain had developed at a rate of 250,000 neurons per minute for over ten weeks. This is not the same as those later brothers and sisters I did not have - he had a body, a heart, a brain. You did not bawl over their bodies - I did over my brother. You are not a guy who, as a child, had to bury his brother - I am. You do not cry upon seeing the face of a smiling child - I often do. My brother was not a pig, nor an invisible ghost - he existed. He was real. Will you speak to a widow about your imaginary dead spouse? I know you did not feel his cold, lifeless body; I know you did not see his heartbeat as we did. Your denial of this reality is absurdly cruel; by the time I was twelve I had seen members of four generations of my family die.

Your emotions have once again caused to you lose sight of the point I was making. I did not draw an equivalency between the many scenarios I mentioned. My point was that it is possible to have feelings about something that does not exist or is not possible. In this case, you feel deep emotions for the brother you could have had. These emotions are real. But they are fundamentally different from a widow's grief for her husband, as I'm sure you understand on some level.

But in any case, please do not take this to mean that your emotions are invalid. We have all experienced tragedies in our lives when a wonderful possibility was torn away from us by fate. It is deeply sad that we live in a universe that is indifferent to our suffering, but at the very least, we can empathize with one another. 

My brother was not imaginary, sir. Do not compare the pain of never having a sibling to losing one, sir. My brother not only was alive by the definition of bioethicists and biologists, but he was human, sir. As long as my lungs breathe air and my heart pumps blood I will not halt my testimony on this matter.

This verbose, breathless superciliousness might make you feel good about yourself, but it is exhausting for others to slog through. I empathize with your pain, but at the same time, I also object to your myopic assumption that you are the only person here who is capable of feeling these emotions. I am trying to validate and understand your perspective. I would appreciate it if you could make a modicum of effort to do the same in return.

[Xeuma]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

On the contrary! I assert that I think my values are superior to yours; if I did not, I would not hold my values.

I also want to legislate based off of my feelings about the barbarity of genital mutilation; my feelings about the evilness of slavery; in short, I feel very strongly in what I think ought to be legislated. You seem to be one of those who wish to dehumanize all of human life into thought experiments; to deprive an emotional world of emotion. I refuse to apologize for my tears, or that my motivation for a great deal of legislation I advocate is based off of my own life experience.

You are, in short, not disputing my point about how valuable my dead brother is to me, but insisting that it is illogical for me to grieve over him. You might as well tell me to defy gravity, for I will never apologize for grieving for my dead relatives. I would sooner cut out my own tongue than to disgrace them so.

And while you hold your feelings above our feelings, you also hold them above the objective indisputable welfare of others. The fact that the harm  is beyond a reasonable doubt in one situation and is not in the other is also dispositive.

Objective and indisputable, according to...?

You dispute that many lives will be disrupted by a sudden massive change in abortion policy?

Many lives will be disrupted for the better, as they will have the opportunity to live them.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Prediction Time:

Like Planned Parenthood v. Casey this will be fractured ruling with a plurality decision acting as the Majority.

In my opinion Roberts will definitely vote for to uphold the restrictions to try to limit the holding of the ruling and get Kavanaugh on board.

"Majority" Upholds the restrictions but says that the case still upholds a right to an abortion, stating that Casey and Roe are not over turned. Expect nonsensical legal reasoning that lawyers will argue about for a decade caused by Roberts checking his top legal source: Gallup.

Author is either Roberts or Kavanaugh. They are likely the only ones who join the opinion in Full. About 3% chance Kagan joins in full to throw Roberts a bone.

The 4 conservatives will join as to the restrictions being upheld but dissent on the rest. The 3 liberals dissent as to the restrictions but join as to the right to an abortion.

Kavanaugh becomes even less popular as this pleases no one. Politicians in both parties rail against him in primaries and the phrase "No More Kavanughs!" is a rare piece of bipartisanship.

Roberts thinks this will end pressure on the issue on both sides for a while. He is wrong.

Barrett writes a opinion concurring in part dissenting in part joined by Goursuch, Thomas and Alito that will become a rallying cry for Evangelicals and a hot button topic for each new SCOTUS vacancy

Kagan writes a opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part pointing out that this case actually overturns Casey. Breyer and Sotomayor join.

Sotomayor writes a separate blistering opinion calling the Supreme Court's Abortion Jurisprudence bullsh**t.

Thomas writes a writes a separate blistering opinion calling the Supreme Court's Abortion Jurisprudence bullsh**t.

 

[Kingpoleon]

Your emotions have once again caused to you lose sight of the point I was making. I did not draw an equivalency between the many scenarios I mentioned. My point was that it is possible to have feelings about something that does not exist or is not possible. In this case, you feel deep emotions for the brother you could have had. These emotions are real. But they are fundamentally different from a widow's grief for her husband, as I'm sure you understand on some level.

But in any case, please do not take this to mean that your emotions are invalid. We have all experienced tragedies in our lives when a wonderful possibility was torn away from us by fate. It is deeply sad that we live in a universe that is indifferent to our suffering, but at the very least, we can empathize with one another.  

I apologize if you don’t understand my point - these emotions are not fundamentally different from the pain of losing my infant cousin. It feels the bloody same. Perhaps it’s odd to you, but in the South it’s not unusual to “talk to” a mother’s stomach to the child. We don’t pretend to not know that, as any bioethicist will tell you, a new life begins at conception. What would it take for you to acknowledge my brother’s existence? Should I dig up his body from the ground? Do I need to count his toes out for you? Should I have preserved his brain and heart that you could see him? I have seen babies a couple weeks older than the age of my brother in the hospital - are they too young to be human, too? There was not some vague, potential that was halted for my baby brother or for my newborn cousin. They were real, living human beings.

[soundchaser]

I do not appreciate the implication that I don’t feel just because I do not feel *your* emotions. I can certainly sympathize with them, even empathize in certain aspects. Grief is near-universal. Once again, I am sorry that you have been through this experience. But your grief — and as you keep saying, it is YOUR grief — should not be, by default, the grief others feel. To insist it must be is to do exactly what you’ve accused me of: to make the feelings of others into illogic.

There is not only one way to feel, generally speaking. I certainly advocate for legislation that is based on my feelings. But I also try to back up that advocacy — if only for my own sake, but I think also to the benefit of others — with more than just those feelings. Emotions like grief are certainly real! They form a valuable part of the human experience. But they are not the only part of the human experience.