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

[John Dule]

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.

It's interesting to me that you are placing so much emphasis on the emotions you feel for your unborn brother, while earlier in this conversation you made such a point to emphasize that the emotions that guided you to save the infant in the thought experiment were invalid. You even argued that those emotions were irrational and the result of "socialization." What makes one emotion valid and another not?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

After MS law is confirmed, this will have a profound effect but that what Conservatives wanted when Trump got Kennedy to retire

[R.P. McM]

Everyone here is mad at RBG, but who you should REALLY be mad at is Anthony Kennedy. That asshole is still alive, but voluntarily retired KNOWING that Donald f--king Trump would appoint his replacement.

I agree RBG should have retired while Obama was still president, but I can't totally blame her for wanting to hold out for the poetry of being replaced by the first female president (and also the wife of the man who appointed her!). Was it worth the risk? No. Can I at least see why she did it? Yeah. Especially considering few thought Trump actually could win at the time.

Kennedy however just completely threw the social liberals he had been helping under the bus, basically. He did it knowingly and deliberately, seemingly with no care at all for whether all the decisions he had passionately defended would be undone or not. Makes you question his entire motives from start to finish.

No, no, no, no, no. Because part of your duty as a political actor is to appraise the opposition. So if they're insane and bloodthirsty and you needlessly surrender to them, yeah, you've F'd up. Equally meaningless: the personal acclaim RBG might've accrued in being replaced by Hillary Clinton. More important than the fate of ~330 million Americans? Only in the mind of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That's what makes her a detestable person — her willingness to value her own historic reputation above the rest of us.

[R.P. McM]

I'm nervous about this ruling but I'm also not going to be too quick to say Roe is DOA. If upholding this 15 week ban does in fact overturn Roe, I see Roberts siding with the liberals and getting one of Kavanaugh or Gorsuch (most likely the former ironically) to side with him on it, as I don't think he'd let that happen given how bitterly divided the country is on the issue and given how dangerously polarized we are as a country at the moment. I think if Roberts is gonna kill Roe v Wade, he's gonna do it by a slow death of a thousand cuts rather than in one ruling. I don't think he wants to further erode people's already eroded faith in the court.

Thanks to RBG's appalling hubris, these decisions are no longer up to John Roberts. Yeah, her legacy will be her personal responsibility for every insane 5-4 rightwing decision moving forward. She was a terrible person (yeah, putting yourself above ~300 million others is the very definition of the the concept) and hopefully, the destruction of her reputation is enough to convince Stephen Breyer not to repeat the same mistake.

I think the only justices that guaranteed to kill Roe outright are Thomas, Alito, and the Handmaid. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are a toss up, and even if they were to do it (and by no means do I want Roe overturned), I think it would be done in a way that leaves the legal status of abortion to the states.

Yeah, that's what the destruction of Roe v Wade means — it's up to the states. Thanks to RBG. Who knows, maybe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will surprise us. But the broader point is that I trust Roberts to attempt to preserve the legitimacy of the Court (too late), assuming the issue isn't nonwhites voting. Unfortunately, thanks to RBG, he no longer has veto power. Terrible justice, terrible person. All the RBG fans need to buckle up, because she's about to be dragged for the next ~20 years.

And for the next ~20 years, we'll point out that society would rather blame the loss of womens' rights on a woman for dying rather than the three/four misogynistic men who made the decision. RBG's "mistake" would never have been a mistake if the person 56% of women voted for -- Hillary Clinton -- was rightfully elected.

Well, personally, post-Civil War, I would've preferred that the South was either denied Senate representation altogether (world would be a better place), or combined into one state with two senators. But that's not political reality, now is it? Sorry, but we can't operate oblivious to reality, especially if we're nominated to the nation's highest court. RBG made an incredibly reckless decision given the transparent nature of the opposition, and now her reputation is going to be dragged through the trash. Deservedly.

[GALeftist]

For the record, I agree with John Dule's take regarding fetal personhood, but I'd like to add that, due to the bodily autonomy argument I mentioned earlier, it is simply not satisfactory for pro-lifers to just insist that fetuses are equal to humans and leave it at that. Even if true, that would not really mean anything of consequence (beyond my moral assessment of a given mother), and it certainly wouldn't mean that abortion ought to be banned. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that even if Christ himself descended from heaven and told me that fetuses are human beings with thoughts and feelings equal to those of an adult human being, I would not consider that to be reason to change our abortion policy in the slightest until He also sees fit to allow fetuses to live without inflicting harm upon the mother. In a way, I think we've already lost the debate when we start arguing over fetal personhood, because pro-lifers' minds will simply never be changed on this. However, all too often we allow them to get away with simply saying "I believe fetuses are people" without explaining why that should affect policy even if it were true.

As far as I'm concerned, whether fetuses are or are not people is a matter of personal opinion which is none of my concern. If you believe they are people, more power to you. I grew up in a Southern Christian family myself, so I understand that this belief can be deeply held. I'd encourage you to consider that educating women of how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and making birth control as widely available as possible would be among the most effective methods of preventing abortions, if you truly do see them as tragedies. However, this is state policy, and to be legitimate it must be subject to certain rules about when it is and isn't appropriate, and it seems pretty clear that this is not one of those times.

[R.P. McM]

For the record, I agree with John Dule's take regarding fetal personhood, but I'd like to add that, due to the bodily autonomy argument I mentioned earlier, it is simply not satisfactory for pro-lifers to just insist that fetuses are equal to humans and leave it at that. Even if true, that would not really mean anything of consequence (beyond my moral assessment of a given mother), and it certainly wouldn't mean that abortion ought to be banned. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that even if Christ himself descended from heaven and told me that fetuses are human beings with thoughts and feelings equal to those of an adult human being, I would not consider that to be reason to change our abortion policy in the slightest until He also sees fit to allow fetuses to live without inflicting harm upon the mother. In a way, I think we've already lost the debate when we start arguing over fetal personhood, because pro-lifers' minds will simply never be changed on this. However, all too often we allow them to get away with simply saying "I believe fetuses are people" without explaining why that should affect policy even if it were true.

As far as I'm concerned, whether fetuses are or are not people is a matter of personal opinion which is none of my concern. If you believe they are people, more power to you. I grew up in a Southern Christian family myself, so I understand that this belief can be deeply held. I'd encourage you to consider that educating women of how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and making birth control as widely available as possible would be among the most effective methods of preventing abortions, if you truly do see them as tragedies. However, this is state policy, and to be legitimate it must be subject to certain rules about when it is and isn't appropriate, and it seems pretty clear that this is not one of those times.

You're both right, and I agree wholeheartedly. Hell, a decade ago, we could've had a productive discussion. But now, power is the only thing that matters. So your philosophical analysis of the issue is entirely irrelevant. The contemporary right is neither willing nor able to engage in a good-faith argument. You're debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin with the audience of OANN. What's the point?

[Torie]

Here is a complicated essay on the matter speculating about the machinations of SCOTUS on the issue and by whom, and about political motivations. If it has been linked above already, my apologies.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/05/17/the-chief-justices-last-bulwark-of-moderation-limiting-and-reframing-questions-presented/

[Kingpoleon]

It's interesting to me that you are placing so much emphasis on the emotions you feel for your unborn brother, while earlier in this conversation you made such a point to emphasize that the emotions that guided you to save the infant in the thought experiment were invalid. You even argued that those emotions were irrational and the result of "socialization." What makes one emotion valid and another not?

I, oddly enough, view an emotion as valid if it recognizes the equality of us all, and in some sense invalid if it fails to. This may seem strange to someone who believes the more developed someone is, the more valuable they are, but for me it is a moral certainty.

[Bojack Horseman]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

These are very rare cases, adoption has been on the rise since 1979 and what did people do with their newborns when they didn't want them before abortion, give them up for adoption, c'mon my mom worked for an adoption agencies in 1980s, it peaked during that time

Sixties it was a rule to give up for adoptions haven't you heard of Little orphan Annie during 1950s

[_.]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

Maybe fourteen-year-olds shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place (or ideally any sex at all)? It speaks more to how we need improved sex education in the U.S. rather than we need abortion to be available (even from a secular perspective).

I frankly don't have much sympathy for those children.
They made a decision then couldn't handle the consequences.


Also, I disagree that it would become more common. Teenage pregnancy rates are dropping, and I doubt restricting abortion will change that.

[John Dule]

It's interesting to me that you are placing so much emphasis on the emotions you feel for your unborn brother, while earlier in this conversation you made such a point to emphasize that the emotions that guided you to save the infant in the thought experiment were invalid. You even argued that those emotions were irrational and the result of "socialization." What makes one emotion valid and another not?

I, oddly enough, view an emotion as valid if it recognizes the equality of us all, and in some sense invalid if it fails to. This may seem strange to someone who believes the more developed someone is, the more valuable they are, but for me it is a moral certainty.

You're putting words in my mouth again. I'll happily discuss this with you once you've decided to climb down off your cross and engage with me in a levelheaded manner.

[Torrain]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

Maybe fourteen-year-olds shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place (or ideally any sex at all)? It speaks more to how we need improved sex education in the U.S. rather than that we need abortion to be made more easily available, and also shows how sexually decadent our country seems to be.

I frankly don't have much sympathy for those children. They made a decision then couldn't handle the consequences.

If abstinence education worked, then the stringent sex education that's present in high schools across the western world would have eliminated teenage pregnancy 30 years ago.

I know that pro-contraception sex education is vital, (for preventing transmission of disease, cancer-causing HPVs and minimising teenage pregnancy) but even that will not prevent these kinds of tragedies.

Outlawing abortion does not prevent it! Take it from someone who's spent some significant time in Northern Ireland, where abortion was banned in its entirely (save for 'mortal risk to life of the mother') until 2019. People will either improvise in horrible, life-changing (and sometimes life-ending) ways, or travel to a region where it is legal.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the thought of any abortion beyond the morning-after pill. If a partner of mine ever went through with one, it would almost certainly end our relationship - it's that emotive to me. However, I cannot foresee any world in which banning it does anything other than significant harm to highly vulnerable individuals.

[SteveRogers]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

Maybe fourteen-year-olds shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place (or ideally any sex at all)? It speaks more to how we need improved sex education in the U.S. rather than we need abortion to be available (even from a secular perspective).

I frankly don't have much sympathy for those children.
They made a decision then couldn't handle the consequences.

The people trying to ban abortion are the same people preventing comprehensive sex ed from being taught in school...

[Greedo punched first]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

Maybe fourteen-year-olds shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place (or ideally any sex at all)? It speaks more to how we need improved sex education in the U.S. rather than we need abortion to be available (even from a secular perspective).

I frankly don't have much sympathy for those children.
They made a decision then couldn't handle the consequences.

The people trying to ban abortion are the same people preventing comprehensive sex ed from being taught in school...

Some of them even think coitus interruptus is a form of abortion.

[_.]

If abstinence education worked, then the stringent sex education that's present in high schools across the western world would have eliminated teenage pregnancy 30 years ago

Comprehensive Sex Education, which is mainly what I'm advocating for, does work (though I wouldn't object to promoting chastity and abstinence along with that).

Teenage pregnancy rates and abortion rates are definitely on a downward trend throughout the United States, according to the Pew Research Center. Probably the same applies to Europe.



I suppose we'll never get the rate down to zero but we should try to get as close as we can.

I know that pro-contraception sex education is vital, (for preventing transmission of disease, cancer-causing HPVs and minimising teenage pregnancy) but even that will not prevent these kinds of tragedies.

True. In fact, I'd be shocked if these occurrences weren't more common a few decades back than they are today, and their decline is something that should be celebrated.

Outlawing abortion does not prevent it! Take it from someone who's spent some significant time in Northern Ireland, where abortion was banned in its entirely (save for 'mortal risk to life of the mother') until 2019. People will either improvise in horrible, life-changing (and sometimes life-ending) ways, or travel to a region where it is legal.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the thought of any abortion beyond the morning-after pill. If a partner of mine ever went through with one, it would almost certainly end our relationship - it's that emotive to me. However, I cannot foresee any world in which banning it does anything other than significant harm to highly vulnerable individuals.

I understand your perspective and respect it. But I consider the value of what is (in my opinion, and also in the opinion of many other people) essentially committing murder to outweigh the "harm it would do to [have a child for] many other highly vulnerable individuals". Once again, these are my own personal beliefs, and I understand how your values may be different.

And I disagree that the harm done to the parents to have a child would be very significant (unless in the case of danger of death or injury to the mother, then abortion should be allowed (in my opinion)). There are millions of Africans who get by having multiple children with much lower living standards. I'm sure you, living in a much more developed country, who is much richer than them, will be just fine. And if you really don't want to reap what you've sown and face the consequences, then just put him or her up for adoption. The fetus doesn't deserve to have its life (I personally consider it as such, you can disagree) ended because his or her parents happened to be irresponsible and made a bad decision.

The people trying to ban abortion are the same people preventing comprehensive sex ed from being taught in school...

That group doesn't include me.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

Maybe fourteen-year-olds shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place (or ideally any sex at all)? It speaks more to how we need improved sex education in the U.S. rather than we need abortion to be available (even from a secular perspective).

I frankly don't have much sympathy for those children.
They made a decision then couldn't handle the consequences.

This line of reasoning always troubles me. Yes, the possibility of pregnancy is an obvious consequence of unprotected sex. Yes, they made a bad decision. But being forced to carry that pregnancy to term and being responsible for raising a child is such an astronomically severe punishment for that mistake. It's a disproportionately severe punishment for adults, let alone young teenagers! Without going too far into the weeds about the psychological development of adolescents, forcing a teenager to bear and raise a child because they made a single bad decision is frankly absurd when we have the resources to terminate pregnancies.

And you even acknowledge that their school system has likely failed them and bears some responsibility for that bad decision! But the teenagers should still have to pay that terrible price?

[Bojack Horseman]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

These are very rare cases, adoption has been on the rise since 1979 and what did people do with their newborns when they didn't want them before abortion, give them up for adoption, c'mon my mom worked for an adoption agencies in 1980s, it peaked during that time

Sixties it was a rule to give up for adoptions haven't you heard of Little orphan Annie during 1950s

Adoption doesn't stop that girl from having to go through a potentially high-risk pregnancy because she's so young and then labor and delivery. No one should ever be forced to carry a child they either don't want or could kill them.

Also there are far more kids up for adoption than there are adoptive parents, contrary to what anti-choice propaganda would tell you. Do you know how many kids age out of foster care every day because nobody wanted them? The ones lucky enough to not be murdered or abandoned will end up in that wretched system. They don't get adopted for various reasons, mainly because everyone wants babies and children that don't have horrific pasts.

I used to work in a psych hospital and I saw the consequences of this every day. I will never forget a 22 year old I met who was abandoned at birth by his drugged-out teenage mother and was then raped and molested every day in foster care until he turned 18. Now he's constantly depressed, suicidal, on drugs, and in and out of the hospital because he can't function.

[_.]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

Maybe fourteen-year-olds shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place (or ideally any sex at all)? It speaks more to how we need improved sex education in the U.S. rather than we need abortion to be available (even from a secular perspective).

I frankly don't have much sympathy for those children.
They made a decision then couldn't handle the consequences.

This line of reasoning always troubles me. Yes, the possibility of pregnancy is an obvious consequence of unprotected sex. Yes, they made a bad decision. But being forced to carry that pregnancy to term and being responsible for raising a child is such an astronomically severe punishment for that mistake. It's a disproportionately severe punishment for adults, let alone young teenagers! Without going too far into the weeds about the psychological development of adolescents, forcing a teenager to bear and raise a child because they made a single bad decision is frankly absurd when we have the resources to terminate pregnancies.

And you even acknowledge that their school system has likely failed them and bears some responsibility for that bad decision! But the teenagers should still have to pay that terrible price?

I suppose I should reword myself. I don't have as much sympathy for the parents (assuming their life isn't going to be threatened by giving birth and they aren't at risk of permanent injury, which is usually the case) as I do for the fetus whose life (I consider it as such, agree to disagree) will be taken away if they're aborted.

The problems caused by bearing a child can be alleviated by having a strong support system in the form of families of the mother and father, as well as governmental aid (in different forms) and having their education be made more flexible (distance learning is making this easier). Pregnant teens (who are becoming rarer and rarer BTW and hopefully in the near future will be statistically insignificant) should definitely see much support from society at large. We shouldn't just ban abortion and leave it at that (in my opinion).

Also, it's not necessary that the mother and father must raise the child (they should be strongly urged to do so, though, and considering that those who go through this are often still living with their parents, usually they'll have resources and capability to raise the child along with their [the mother and father's] families). If they really, really don't want to face the consequences, they can put their child up for adoption (which is not a good idea to say the least because of how overrun the adoption system is, also, Millions of destitute Africans can get by raising multiple children but somehow these rich kids living with their parents in the developed world can't? Give me a break).

You may see the core issue (whether or not abortion is murder) differently from me and I can respect that, even if I disagree.

[HisGrace]

There kind of is a constitutional right to concealed carry already whether the left wants to recognize it or not because they don't like guns.

Overturning Roe is an extremely bad idea, on the converse.

A few alternate scenarios to all the doom and gloom here.

I've said before Gorsuch has a pretty "squishy" record on abortion and Roberts is just chicken and never wants to be the decisive vote to bring about change. So I could see a path to it being upheld 5-4. There also could be compromise where Mississippi's ban stays in place but Roe is not overturned altogether. Which would be non-optimal but still better than a bunch of states being able to full on ban all abortion.

Also I'm a bit dubious as to the "waiting for the midterms" argument. If it actually generates enough outrage to ruin them in the midterms then they'll still get nuked in the 2024 midterms and lose the presidential elections if they wait. If they're gonna do it they might as well do it now, rip the bandaid off and take the L in 2022, and then hope things have cooled down enough for them to beat Biden or whoever in 2024. The point being, this makes me doubt the votes are actually there.

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.

What is the point of winning elections if you lose on the actual issues? This is the apex of the "politics as a spectator sport" mindset.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

Look, I get that you feel this way but I still don't understand your insistence on conception being the starting point for life. Regardless of how your perceive your brothers' existence in the universe, all the characteristics to life which you just described were objectively not present the moment a sperm and an egg united to created a zygote. Why is conception the cutoff? Why not later--or sooner? A zygote is not substantively different from an egg in its capabilities, experiences, or function. A clump of 10; 100; 1,000 cells is not a brain or a toe or a heart. Why are you so insistent on saying that life begins at conception when all the physical characteristics which define human life are completely absent? It just doesn't make sense. Maybe later on in a pregnancy, but at conception..surely not.

[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.

What is the point of winning elections if you lose on the actual issues? This is the apex of the "politics as a spectator sport" mindset.

You misunderstand the nature of the abortion issue.

If this decision is overturned, suddenly, millions of people will no longer have a reason to vote R. They could start voting for their own economic interests, finally. This might finally give us the voting power to end the seemingly unstoppable wealth inequality spiral.

[lfromnj]

There kind of is a constitutional right to concealed carry already whether the left wants to recognize it or not because they don't like guns.

Overturning Roe is an extremely bad idea, on the converse.

A few alternate scenarios to all the doom and gloom here.

I've said before Gorsuch has a pretty "squishy" record on abortion and Roberts is just chicken and never wants to be the decisive vote to bring about change. So I could see a path to it being upheld 5-4. There also could be compromise where Mississippi's ban stays in place but Roe is not overturned altogether. Which would be non-optimal but still better than a bunch of states being able to full on ban all abortion.



What is the point of winning elections if you lose on the actual issues? This is the apex of the "politics as a spectator sport" mindset.

Where is Gorsuch's squishy record on abortion?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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.

What is the point of winning elections if you lose on the actual issues? This is the apex of the "politics as a spectator sport" mindset.

You misunderstand the nature of the abortion issue.

If this decision is overturned, suddenly, millions of people will no longer have a reason to vote R. They could start voting for their own economic interests, finally. This might finally give us the voting power to end the seemingly unstoppable wealth inequality spiral.

Possibly, but this seems unlikely - if anything, Republican strategists might have to be more worried about their pro-choice voters (of whom there are many, including big time Trump supporters). Roe vs Wade is totemic but really not the final frontier for either "side" of the abortion debate, although it will not go precisely because the totem is probably more useful than whatever remains afterwards given the cultural significance it has accrued through decades of politics.

For most voters, it is rarely ever about states' rights.

[AGA]

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.

What is the point of winning elections if you lose on the actual issues? This is the apex of the "politics as a spectator sport" mindset.

You misunderstand the nature of the abortion issue.

If this decision is overturned, suddenly, millions of people will no longer have a reason to vote R. They could start voting for their own economic interests, finally. This might finally give us the voting power to end the seemingly unstoppable wealth inequality spiral.