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

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Anyways, both morally and politically, I hope this passes. Abortion is a form of murder and should only be protected federally for very specific situations.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. If abortion is legal, it is explicitly not murder.

The state has no moral power to legalize abortion, just as it has no moral power to legalize any sort of human rights violations.

That's not how Western legal culture works.

We executed people for the Holocaust, which was also “legal.”

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Anyways, both morally and politically, I hope this passes. Abortion is a form of murder and should only be protected federally for very specific situations.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. If abortion is legal, it is explicitly not murder.

The state has no moral power to legalize abortion, just as it has no moral power to legalize any sort of human rights violations.

Weird take.

The state has no legitimate right to usurp bodily autonomy without overwhelming cause--and can never default to that as a blanket rule. That's the moral issue here. Government will never justly be able to regulate abortion because it lies so far beyond the bounds of legitimate collective power. The role of the state is to create guidelines for orderly society, preserve security, formalize the economy, protect individual rights, and provide certain services. Any action beyond that--for example, prohibiting abortion--is such an egregious act of tyranny that--no matter how popular it may be--it can never be just. If the state ventures into these areas, it loses all semblance of moral authority and is no different from a barbarous, uncivilized mob. Which, of course, would literally defeat the entire purpose of the American project.

Anyways, both morally and politically, I hope this passes. Abortion is a form of murder and should only be protected federally for very specific situations.

You have literally no moral authority on anything, ever.

Even under a “bodily autonomy” analysis abortion still fails. The fetus has every much right to bodily autonomy as its mother.

Only to the extent that a fetus can be considered an actual human. And since no just government would make that determination based upon religious conceptions of souls, we are forced to turn to logic to figure out whether our social values consider fetuses human.

Clearly, we don't see the right to life as absolute--humans kill an awful lot of animals and mostly consider this moral. Similarly, the mere presence of pain has never been the threshold at which we decide something ought to be prohibited. What actually distinguishes human life from other forms--what we actually value--is human consciousness. We have assigned value to not killing something capable of complicated thought and which--crucially--possesses self-awareness. People are cognizant of "themselves" being a thing that exists in the world and to kill that is a uniquely immoral act.

Therefore, since bodily autonomy only applies to humans--and the line we have drawn between killing and murder is the line between mere life and actual self-aware consciousness, we can only conclude that killing is immoral if the being which is killed is aware that it exists as an individual person. Obviously, that trait does not appear for at least the first two trimesters of a pregnancy so unless we are to reevaluate how we assign moral value to the life of literally every other living thing, it would be hypocritical and unjust to conclude that a fetus before this time has personhood. Since a fetus does not have personhood, it therefore has no bodily autonomy which can be defended by the government. And since third trimester abortions happen basically exclusively to preserve the health and life of the mother (therefore, made acceptable under the universally accepted right to self-defense), the government has no moral authority to outlaw abortion.

[Xeuma]

Anyways, both morally and politically, I hope this passes. Abortion is a form of murder and should only be protected federally for very specific situations.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. If abortion is legal, it is explicitly not murder.

The state has no moral power to legalize abortion, just as it has no moral power to legalize any sort of human rights violations.

That's not how Western legal culture works.

We executed people for the Holocaust, which was also “legal.”

I’m serious: we obviously do recognize the state does not have the final authority to decide what is or is not legal: there exist higher laws.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, this is on you.

If HRC won in 2016, Rs might have a Filibuster Proof Senate Majority.

Anything "might" be true, but we can be pretty sure that Republicans wouldn't hold a 6-3 majority.

They were talking about holding Scalia's seat open another 4 years if Hillary won, so there's a good chance a Republican would be filling Scalia and RBG's seats now and Kennedy would be retiring soon.

Like I said, anything "might" be true.

As opposed to a Republican Senate approving a Democratic Supreme Court justice for the first time since 1895?

[GALeftist]

Even under a “bodily autonomy” analysis abortion still fails. The fetus has every much right to bodily autonomy as its mother.

This is wrong, but it's at least wrong in a somewhat interesting way, so I thought I'd respond. To explain, let's consider a hypothetical scenario in which you're walking with me beside a dangerous river or something. I trip and fall into the river, and I'm a poor swimmer, so I will die if you don't attempt to save me, but by the same token saving a poor swimmer from a dangerous river is an inherently risky course of action. You're faced with a moral dilemma: do you attempt to save me, at risk to your own life and health, or not? For our purposes, though, the answer to this dilemma is basically irrelevant. The real question is "should the state mandate that you save me from the river, even at risk to your own life and health?"

The obvious answer to this question is, in my estimation, of course not (even if we assume you're a strong swimmer and there's no chance of your drowning, just to provide an analogue for exemptions in cases where the mother's life is threatened). For one thing, there are any number of factors which the state can't always foresee. Maybe, for instance, you have a family who relies on you to put food on the table, and injuring yourself either temporarily or permanently in the course of rescuing me would not be an acceptable risk. More fundamentally, though, the morality of it doesn't really factor into it. The state allows us to do many immoral, even gravely immoral, things, but it simply does not have a right to force us to use our bodies that way, even in pursuit of laudable goals. Whether you take that risk to save me, however admirable it may be, is and ought only to be your choice. I think most people would agree with this principle. In the same way, whether an individual undergoes the harm (which is what it ought to be called) pregnancy entails is and ought only to be their choice, regardless of what the moral answer to the dilemma might be.

Your argument would seem to imply that, in a situation like the one I've described, my right to bodily autonomy would justify state action forcing you to save me, but that doesn't follow. I mean, perhaps state action would be justified in compelling the river to quit violating my bodily autonomy by drowning me, but a river is a river, it isn't accountable to the law. Despite the fact that my plight might be unjust in some theoretical sense, that doesn't imply that the state has a right to unjustly use your body to rectify my injustice. Similarly, until the state can get fetuses to stop needing to inflict harm on the parent to survive, the fetus's bodily autonomy is sadly mostly theoretical and irrelevant.

One common counterargument that I hear to this is that the individual who got pregnant is responsible for the circumstances of the fetus and that there is therefore an obligation to that fetus on the part of the pregnant individual. However, I honestly don't think agency is an important part of this analogy. For example, even if you tripped and pushed me into the river, I don't think that would justify state action forcing you to rescue me. There might be a better argument if you actively pushed me in, especially if you intended to kill me, or if your negligence somehow led to my drowning but I still have a couple of issues with this. Firstly, in that case, the actual crime would not be that you declined to rescue me, it would be that you killed me. Secondly, I suspect you'll find that the vast majority of abortions occur in cases where the pregnancy was accidental. Thirdly, for the court to find which pregnancies legitimately did occur due to malicious intent or gross negligence is, I daresay, an impossible task.

Finally, yes, I would still agree with this position even if it was a baby drowning, even if it was a baby you accidentally pushed in, and even if it was a baby the state merely couldn't prove you pushed in intentionally or due to gross negligence. In my opinion, this argument is a fairly robust defense of abortion based on bodily autonomy up until the child can live without inflicting harm upon the pregnant individual.

[AtorBoltox]

Anyways, both morally and politically, I hope this passes. Abortion is a form of murder and should only be protected federally for very specific situations.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. If abortion is legal, it is explicitly not murder.

The state has no moral power to legalize abortion, just as it has no moral power to legalize any sort of human rights violations.

That's not how Western legal culture works.

We executed people for the Holocaust, which was also “legal.”

I’m serious: we obviously do recognize the state does not have the final authority to decide what is or is not legal: there exist higher laws.

The Holocaust was actually not legal even under German law at the time, was devised in secret and not legislated through any rational governmental process. The Holocaust and other actions like the T4 Euthanasia programme were cases of the state apparatus simply ignoring their own nations laws

[Pericles]

If you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, this is on you.

If HRC won in 2016, Rs might have a Filibuster Proof Senate Majority.

Anything "might" be true, but we can be pretty sure that Republicans wouldn't hold a 6-3 majority.

They were talking about holding Scalia's seat open another 4 years if Hillary won, so there's a good chance a Republican would be filling Scalia and RBG's seats now and Kennedy would be retiring soon.

Like I said, anything "might" be true.

As opposed to a Republican Senate approving a Democratic Supreme Court justice for the first time since 1895?

Or maybe if enough young people actually bothered to vote in 2016 and not just in 2020, the Senate would have flipped too and the Court would have a solid 5-4 liberal majority. We'll never know.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Only people who voted for Hillary Clinton on 11/8/2016 get to complain if they overturn Roe v. Wade.

You'd probably never get Trump, if Democrats didn't embrace one of the most disliked persons of the US, "the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long", Hillary Rodham Clinton. FWIW.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As I said before there are so many family members adopting their own relatives now, a female or make partnership to make an unwanted pregnancy can give it up for adoption so that one of their own relatives van get the baby

Birth rates have plummeted, we are at record adoptions since 1979, don't  users on this forum realize that

Kennedy was the one that pretended to be a moderate, and gave Trump the Appointment, this issue is gonna be important but passing DC statehood and HR 1 is more imperative than some adoption

Since  Covid Birthrates have plummeted and adoptions are at records, even Athletes and celebritied are adopting, you can surpass the in meant state and get a ready made child

[Person Man]

Only people who voted for Hillary Clinton on 11/8/2016 get to complain if they overturn Roe v. Wade.

You'd probably never get Trump, if Democrats didn't embrace one of the most disliked persons of the US, "the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long", Hillary Rodham Clinton. FWIW.

I don’t know about all of that but she was definitely disliked by the voters that made the difference between her and Biden. That’s why I thought even Bernie was a good idea. If he did he well, it gave us options. If he lost, the “socialists” would shut the hell up for another 20 years. I thought it was a win win.

[Person Man]

Where are all the choir boys?

[I’m not Stu]

Susan Collins will have egg on her face.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Susan Collins will have egg on her face.

No she doesn't she voted for Sam Alito in 2006

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Susan Collins along with Olympia Shower voted for Alito as well im 2006, and they knew he was pro life. So did Murkowski, the fake Moderates

[Alcibiades]

Sex education is okay, theoretically. Contraception and abortion are the same thing, except one is far more violent. Banning things actually does cause the rate to decrease. The value of life is not predicated on what will unfold. The good that comes from banning abortion is the end to murdering children. I'm not sure how this is "controlling women," that talking point has never made sense to me even when I was sympathetic to your view.

They’re literally not, even if you are opposed to both for similar reasons. Abortion is terminating a foetus, contraception just prevents fertilisation. By your logic, masturbation and wet dreams are “the same thing” as abortion.

[Person Man]

As I said before there are so many family members adopting their own relatives now, a female or make partnership to make an unwanted pregnancy can give it up for adoption so that one of their own relatives van get the baby

Birth rates have plummeted, we are at record adoptions since 1979, don't  users on this forum realize that

Kennedy was the one that pretended to be a moderate, and gave Trump the Appointment, this issue is gonna be important but passing DC statehood and HR 1 is more imperative than some adoption

Since  Covid Birthrates have plummeted and adoptions are at records, even Athletes and celebritied are adopting, you can surpass the in meant state and get a ready made child

Adoption really isn’t this magic replacement for abortion. For many who oppose abortion but don’t think it’s  necessarily murder, adoption and abortion are wrong for the same reason. That reason is that abortion and adoption are avoiding doing things that society relies on you to do. A lot of those people see not paying child support the same as abortion.

On the other side of the coin, a lot of people, even those considering abortion, are not comfortable with adoption because it’s “selling your children”. The act of abandoning a child is also more traumatic to some than abortion. For every person who regrets an abortion, there’s probably a person who regrets adoption just as much.

This might be hard for many people to understand which should again bring us back to this idea that some groups of people don’t have or ever will have same type of empathy as other groups of people when it comes to certain things. Abortion being one of them. If abortion isn’t a religious issue then it is quite possibly a neourophenotypal issue.

In a way, it’s even worse if it’s the latter because if you punish people involved in abortion with murder it might not be anyway different than punishing a puppy for peeing on the rug 3 hours ago. Like many other issues with moral underpinnings, the motivations for advocacy on this issue are mostly quite selfish.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As I said before there are so many family members adopting their own relatives now, a female or make partnership to make an unwanted pregnancy can give it up for adoption so that one of their own relatives van get the baby

Birth rates have plummeted, we are at record adoptions since 1979, don't  users on this forum realize that

Kennedy was the one that pretended to be a moderate, and gave Trump the Appointment, this issue is gonna be important but passing DC statehood and HR 1 is more imperative than some adoption

Since  Covid Birthrates have plummeted and adoptions are at records, even Athletes and celebritied are adopting, you can surpass the in meant state and get a ready made child

Adoption really isn’t this magic replacement for abortion. For many who oppose abortion but don’t think it’s  necessarily murder, adoption and abortion are wrong for the same reason. That reason is that abortion and adoption are avoiding doing things that society relies on you to do. A lot of those people see not paying child support the same as abortion.

On the other side of the coin, a lot of people, even those considering abortion, are not comfortable with adoption because it’s “selling your children”. The act of abandoning a child is also more traumatic to some than abortion. For every person who regrets an abortion, there’s probably a person who regrets adoption just as much.

This might be hard for many people to understand which should again bring us back to this idea that some groups of people don’t have or ever will have same type of empathy as other groups of people when it comes to certain things. Abortion being one of them. If abortion isn’t a religious issue then it is quite possibly a neourophenotypal issue.

In a way, it’s even worse if it’s the latter because if you punish people involved in abortion with murder it might not be anyway different than punishing a puppy for peeing on the rug 3 hours ago. Like many other issues with moral underpinnings, the motivations for advocacy on this issue are mostly quite selfish.

I was talking about families whom give up their children for adoption that have other family members that want the children, like my family situation this has happened.

But celebrities and athletes whom have the money love to adopt, they don't have the time to keep making babies, Freddie Freeman, Rosie O'Donnell, Buster Posey, especially White families where males fertility is lower.  

But, churches promotes adoptions, that's what they do, but it's very expensive to adopt, but the media just said adoption is at its highest point since 1979

[Person Man]

As I said before there are so many family members adopting their own relatives now, a female or make partnership to make an unwanted pregnancy can give it up for adoption so that one of their own relatives van get the baby

Birth rates have plummeted, we are at record adoptions since 1979, don't  users on this forum realize that

Kennedy was the one that pretended to be a moderate, and gave Trump the Appointment, this issue is gonna be important but passing DC statehood and HR 1 is more imperative than some adoption

Since  Covid Birthrates have plummeted and adoptions are at records, even Athletes and celebritied are adopting, you can surpass the in meant state and get a ready made child

Adoption really isn’t this magic replacement for abortion. For many who oppose abortion but don’t think it’s  necessarily murder, adoption and abortion are wrong for the same reason. That reason is that abortion and adoption are avoiding doing things that society relies on you to do. A lot of those people see not paying child support the same as abortion.

On the other side of the coin, a lot of people, even those considering abortion, are not comfortable with adoption because it’s “selling your children”. The act of abandoning a child is also more traumatic to some than abortion. For every person who regrets an abortion, there’s probably a person who regrets adoption just as much.

This might be hard for many people to understand which should again bring us back to this idea that some groups of people don’t have or ever will have same type of empathy as other groups of people when it comes to certain things. Abortion being one of them. If abortion isn’t a religious issue then it is quite possibly a neourophenotypal issue.

In a way, it’s even worse if it’s the latter because if you punish people involved in abortion with murder it might not be anyway different than punishing a puppy for peeing on the rug 3 hours ago. Like many other issues with moral underpinnings, the motivations for advocacy on this issue are mostly quite selfish.

I was talking about families whom give up their children for adoption that have other family members that want the children, like my family situation this has happened.

But celebrities and athletes whom have the money love to adopt, they don't have the time to keep making babies, Freddie Freeman, Rosie O'Donnell, Buster Posey, especially White families where males fertility is lower.  

But, churches promotes adoptions, that's what they do, but it's very expensive to adopt, but the media just said adoption is at its highest point since 1979

Just sounds like the situation where I got Lacey the bitch and she does think me and her are the same so...

[I’m not Stu]

Adrian Vermeule is gaslighting.

https://twitter.com/Vermeullarmine/status/1394415263513260039

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I think it's pretty likely that the 15 week ban in Mississippi will be allowed to stand, but the other question is whether the Supreme Court would go further.  There's a huge difference between allowing late 1st/early 2nd trimester bans and fully overturning Roe v. Wade.  I'm concerned that it could be a 5-4 ruling against allowing states to fully protect the unborn (with Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Gorsuch dissenting).  I've had concerns about Kavanaugh being weak on life from the day he was nominated.

Praying that the justices will do the right thing and that abortion will finally come to an end in this nation!!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's not necessary to have an abortion it was never necessary, adoption was at records in 1970s and 1980s and thanks to Covid, we are returning back to adoptions

[I’m not Stu]

There are already four definite votes for fetal personhood.

[John Dule]

If a building was burning down and you could save either a newborn baby or 1,000 fertilized human embryos in test tubes, which would you save? If it's the baby, congrats-- you're pro-choice. Get over yourself.

[R.P. McM]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

Certainly not! Those states are doing fantastic now. Every day one of my friends at the bagel shop says, boy, I can't wait til my number comes up and I can move to Huntington, WV or Branson, MO!

Glad to see "socialists" express contempt for economically deprived areas.

It's entirely their fault we're in the current predicament. Yeah, the WWC of WV, MO, etc., valued their racial/religious animus above their economic wellbeing. So please, please don't expect me to shed a tear for them. They're getting exactly what they voted for, and exactly what they deserve.

[R.P. McM]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is a silly fantasy. Some states with restrictive abortion laws such as Mississippi already have very few clinics not accessible to large swathes of the population. Despite that, you aren't seeing mass migrations of people for reasons of lack of accessible abortion services. As others pointed out, people simply don't move for ideological reasons short of actual persecution for your beliefs.

Admittedly, it's not a huge subset of the population. But given MS's climate and COL, wouldn't you expect them to be doing pretty well? Instead, MS's population increased by ~0.3% over the previous decade. Versus my cold, relatively expensive Midwestern home state: ~6.3%. Yeah, assuming MS outlaws abortion, there's a 0% chance any major MN firm attempts to relocate without incurring significant backlash. Essentially, the employees of said firm would say, "no thanks, I'm not moving to f***ing MS." Which they already say, but it'd be exponentially worse.