Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2022, 03:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Fair enough, but why are they appointed by presidents that we vote for?  Or is this just another area where our system was never meant to be this bi-partisan and this powerful?

This.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 03:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'll answer as long as you acknowledge that a woman doesn't have two sets of DNA, so it's not her body because, let's be honest, you asked that question to try and avoid admitting that a woman doesn't have two sets of DNA so it's not her body.

A woman doesn't have two sets of DNA.

Your turn.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's funny we're having this discussion. I am currently reading over someone's master's thesis on "Satisfaction With Democracy" that they sent me.

In all seriousness, our system is broken and, IMHO, it is in large part because we idolize the Constitution and refuse to update the foundations of our government. Our founders expected a new Constitution every 10-20 years. We haven't even seen an amendment in 30 (as of this coming Saturday). Our country, people, and government are trying to operate in a 21st century world with an 18th century document. It was ahead of its time then, but it is outdated now. The weaknesses have been exposed and they are being exploited by those in power to perpetuate their power for themselves.

What do you think the founding fathers would say if you asked them if a fetus inside a black woman is a person? You seem pretty in tune with history...on the surface it seems completely out of step with their times, but I don't know for sure.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2022, 03:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Fair enough, but why are they appointed by presidents that we vote for?  Or is this just another area where our system was never meant to be this bi-partisan and this powerful?

Who else would they be appointed by?  As to the second, you're likely correct.

Quote:The last refuge of the neo con who didn't like Trump was that he was going to appoint conservative SC justices who would, supposedly, rule in a conservative manner.  

My view on all this is more about how twisted and chaotic the viewpoint of the American populace is.  We complain about how divided we are, and yet one thing where some 80% agree is being overturned...just seems like another wacky day in the life, I suppose. 

True, but again, the popularity of something is not a consideration for the SCOTUS.  I think the real villain here is a do nothing Congress who sat on their thumbs on this issue instead of doing their job and passing a federal law protecting abortion access.  As several of us have pointed out, the original Roe ruling wasn't exactly based on a rock solid interpretation.  Plus what SCOTUS can create out of thin air they can return to thin air.

(05-04-2022, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's funny we're having this discussion. I am currently reading over someone's master's thesis on "Satisfaction With Democracy" that they sent me.

In all seriousness, our system is broken and, IMHO, it is in large part because we idolize the Constitution and refuse to update the foundations of our government. Our founders expected a new Constitution every 10-20 years. We haven't even seen an amendment in 30 (as of this coming Saturday). Our country, people, and government are trying to operate in a 21st century world with an 18th century document. It was ahead of its time then, but it is outdated now. The weaknesses have been exposed and they are being exploited by those in power to perpetuate their power for themselves.

Just out of curiosity, and this probably deserves its own thread, but in what ways is it outdated that you feel should be addressed immediately?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-04-2022, 09:19 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: That's why it is best to not set a legal limit on abortions. Setting a week limit on abortions likely does not prevent all that many abortions (maybe 1 to 2% of them), but in the cases that they would prevent, the abortions are likely the most medically necessary. So by setting a limit, you're endangering the mother without even really helping the babies.


Morally speaking, to answer your original question, I think the end of the first trimester is where it would be "Ok" to have an abortion just because you don't want to have a child, but that doesn't consider any of what I've said above, so it really holds no value, in my opinion.

So middle ground is what i said, Abortions legal til end of first tri-mester, then after it's based on health of baby/momma.

It's not an extremist one way or the other decision, but a middle ground where both sides get a win and a loss, that "should" appease both sides.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who else would they be appointed by?  As to the second, you're likely correct.

Well, that's why I added the second part.  The office of president was likely never supposed to be this powerful, but we've turned politics in a two-team sporting event, so meh...reap what you sow and all that.

Personally, a morbidly curious part of me wishes I could poke my head into a reality where Roe v Wade was overturned in the Reagan era just to see how today's neo-cons would handle dealing with an extra 50+ million or so "millennials."

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 03:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: A woman doesn't have two sets of DNA.

Your turn.

So you admit that she's killing another person.

It depends on the case. I think there are some instances where it is justified, such as the life of the mother being in danger.

I'm glad that you finally admitted that abortion on demand is wrong and it is right that it's illegal!

The only problem is that it's illegal on the federal level but states can still make it legal.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-04-2022, 01:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's not an answer, that's a cop-out.

An answer you don't like is still an answer.

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 05:02 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: An answer you don't like is still an answer.

It wasn't an answer.

[CJD]

(05-04-2022, 03:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then explain it to me because it seems pretty obvious to me.

There's a very large physical tax to being pregnant. You can't eat or drink certain foods, you can't work out or move the way you may want, you typically gain weight, you get stretch marks, you cause other various structural damage to your body (from tearing and blood loss to sagging skin or internal organ issues), you may have consistent soreness, aches and pains, as well as other more serious physical risks (such as death in some scenarios). And, if a C section is required, surgery, temporary rearrangement of organs (to get to the uterus) and recovery time are also risks. Not to mention, there are mental issues such as post partum depression and other mood or anxiety disorders that may occur when or after you are pregnant.

It's a lot to put your body and mind through. You are essentially giving up your ability to maintain and govern your body the way you want to (some may call it your "bodily autonomy"). Something that I think we all would agree is a very important aspect of human life. A right and a freedom to be protected.

So, if a woman is pregnant and she does not want to be, she has two options. She can put her body through these physical and mental changes because she wants to birth the child, whether to keep or give up for adoption. Or, she can choose to not put her body through these physical and mental changes and abort the child.

Since it is her body that is affected by the pregnancy, it is her choice whether or not she will allow this baby to grow inside of her body for 9 months.

[CJD]

(05-04-2022, 04:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So middle ground is what i said, Abortions legal til end of first tri-mester, then after it's based on health of baby/momma.

It's not an extremist one way or the other decision, but a middle ground where both sides get a win and a loss, that "should" appease both sides.

If the options were this and an outright ban in certain states, I think it would be better than nothing. I still think the subjective nature of "based on health of baby and mother" would cause some problems but in red states, you take what you can get. 

The real issue then would be accessibility. Being allowed to get an abortion is of no use if there is no practical means by which an abortion can be obtained, as is often the case in red states where there's maybe 1 or 2 clinics in the entire state.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-04-2022, 05:12 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Since it is her body that is affected by the pregnancy, it is her choice whether or not she will allow this baby to grow inside of her body for 9 months.

It was also her choice to have unprotected sex. 
Abortions should not be used as birth control, not when there is other ways to prevent it.

Isn't that the whole idea behind Sex ED?

[CJD]

(05-04-2022, 05:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It was also her choice to have unprotected sex. 
Abortions should not be used as birth control, not when there is other ways to prevent it.

I was just defining what the phrase "her body, her choice" means since Brad apparently thought it meant the baby's body was the exact same thing as the woman's body.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-04-2022, 09:14 AM)M.W. Wrote: Isn't abortion and welfare inversely proportional?  Less abortions = more welfare payments.. More abortions = less welfare.  Force a poor woman to have a child she isn't equipped to care for and that becomes a problem for tax payers and brings another child into a toxic (sometimes) environment.  Poor nutrition as a child coupled with mental/physical abuse often leads to adolescents and adults who have mental abnormalities.

So the GOP wants the child born into a horrible (normally) situation however would prefer the child to starve the old fashioned way after birth?

Yes and no, 50% of abortions come from lower class. So there is still the 50% that can make it fluctuate.
While it will have an effect on Welfare, I just don't think it will have as great of an effect as you are making it out to be.

[CJD]

(05-04-2022, 05:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It was also her choice to have unprotected sex. 
Abortions should not be used as birth control, not when there is other ways to prevent it.

Isn't that the whole idea behind Sex ED?

(05-04-2022, 05:26 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I was just defining what the phrase "her body, her choice" means since Brad apparently thought it meant the baby's body was the exact same thing as the woman's body.

But I'll still respond, I'm committed now :). Here's the counter argument to that:

It's true that it is, generally, her choice to have unprotected sex and that is what led to the pregnancy, but this leaves a LOT of context out.

Neither birth control nor condoms have a 100% effective rate, so it's not even guaranteed that the pregnancy was a result of unprotected sex.

In addition, there are some rather massive problems with sexual education in this country, especially in more conservative areas. There's a fairly good chance that there are people who don't even know about condoms or birth control (or whose parents, church or other societal structure does not allow or pressures them not to use them) or perhaps don't have the means to obtain them. But those people will still have sex because, you know, hormones...

And that's not even mentioning rape, incest, pressured/non-consensual sex (and by that, I mean, sex that you can't "prove" is rape but...you know...is rape).

It doesn't help that these issues disproportionately affect poor and less educated people (which, in turn, perpetuates poverty and lack of education if they are forced or pressured into being teenage/poor mothers).

I think a big problem with the argument that, since it is her choice to have sex she must bear the consequences of her actions, is that society and our legal system does not hold the man equally responsible. He does not have to go through any physical changes as part of this child's birth. Hell, he doesn't even have to be there. He definitely doesn't have to raise the child, both legally or socially, as the mother is often given 100% of the blame for any unintended pregnancies. And, sure, she can pursue him for child care but that's a legal battle that takes time and money and, even if she wins, he could always be late on payments, he could move, or he may even just attempt to disappear into the system and avoid the payments. The police could arrest/fine him if they find him, but we have a funding problem with the police too, so who knows how much effort they'd put towards that while you (the mother) are struggling to pay for and raise this child that you didn't want alone.

We're laying far too much at the feet of mothers whose only "sin" is having sex, whether consensual or not (and I disagree even with that notion that having unprotected sex should lead to such upheaval in her life). 

[CKwi88]

(05-04-2022, 05:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It was also her choice to have unprotected sex. 
Abortions should not be used as birth control, not when there is other ways to prevent it.

Isn't that the whole idea behind Sex ED?

Are pregnancies exclusively caused by unprotected sex?

And are a statistically relevant number of abortions being done as "birth control"?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-04-2022, 05:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: But I'll still respond, I'm committed now :). Here's the counter argument to that:

It's true that it is, generally, her choice to have unprotected sex and that is what led to the pregnancy, but this leaves a LOT of context out.

Neither birth control nor condoms have a 100% effective rate, so it's not even guaranteed that the pregnancy was a result of unprotected sex.

In addition, there are some rather massive problems with sexual education in this country, especially in more conservative areas. There's a fairly good chance that there are people who don't even know about condoms or birth control (or whose parents, church or other societal structure does not allow or pressures them not to use them) or perhaps don't have the means to obtain them. But those people will still have sex because, you know, hormones...

And that's not even mentioning rape, incest, pressured/non-consensual sex (and by that, I mean, sex that you can't "prove" is rape but...you know...is rape).

It doesn't help that these issues disproportionately affect poor and less educated people (which, in turn, perpetuates poverty and lack of education if they are forced or pressured into being teenage/poor mothers).

I think a big problem with the argument that, since it is her choice to have sex she must bear the consequences of her actions, is that society and our legal system does not hold the man equally responsible. He does not have to go through any physical changes as part of this child's birth. Hell, he doesn't even have to be there. He definitely doesn't have to raise the child, both legally or socially, as the mother is often given 100% of the blame for any unintended pregnancies. And, sure, she can pursue him for child care but that's a legal battle that takes time and money and, even if she wins, he could always be late on payments, he could move, or he may even just attempt to disappear into the system and avoid the payments. The police could arrest/fine him if they find him, but we have a funding problem with the police too, so who knows how much effort they'd put towards that while you (the mother) are struggling to pay for and raise this child that you didn't want alone.

We're laying far too much at the feet of mothers whose only "sin" is having sex, whether consensual or not (and I disagree even with that notion that having unprotected sex should lead to such upheaval in her life). 

Very well aware that protected sex is not 100% reliable.

We can't seem to control how well taught Sex Ed in private schools, but that's a small minority. 90% of all kids attend Public schools. All schools are required to teach it.

I haven't stated my problem with schools in a while, but I'll give a brief run down, and some will find it as extreme possibly. I believe that all schools subjects should be mandated by the Federal goverment (as far as what is taught at each grade level). Reason being, if family moves from NY to Wisconsin, then kids at the same grade level can be ahead or behind. If a kid is excelling, then put them in honor classes for their subject of mastery. Enough said there as i don't want to derail the topic.

Back to teens and sex ed. Teens make up @9% of all abortions, 20-29 year olds make up 50% of all abortions, so they should be done with Sex Ed...

No issues with rape/incest or other means. remember, i want it legalized for first tri-mester. 

B/C should be readily available (free to lower income) to all women of all social classes. But i also believe in a single payer healthcare plan for all USC's... again, though different topic.

Understood Mother bears the physical aspect. That can't be helped, It's just the way we are designed. However, I also believe that the mother needs to name the father (and father tested if they deny), in order to make sure the father is at least somewhat financially responsible. 

But again, I'm giving the first tri-mester to have an abortion vs having that much upheaval in their life. Since already posted, that about 90% of all abortions are done in that time frame, I would think it's plenty of time for the mother to decide if she wants that much "upheaval" in her life or not.

(05-04-2022, 05:51 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Are pregnancies exclusively caused by unprotected sex?

And are a statistically relevant number of abortions being done as "birth control"?

60% of all abortions are first timers. the rest are predominately Mothers that have 1-2 kids already, and yes, could be using it as a means of BC rather than using contraceptives. If they know they don't want more kids, why not get the implant that lasts 5 yrs? Then you are 99% covered and only need to concern yourself with the STD side??? 

[CJD]

(05-04-2022, 07:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Very well aware that protected sex is not 100% reliable.

We can't seem to control how well taught Sex Ed in private schools, but that's a small minority. 90% of all kids attend Public schools. All schools are required to teach it.

I haven't stated my problem with schools in a while, but I'll give a brief run down, and some will find it as extreme possibly. I believe that all schools subjects should be mandated by the Federal goverment (as far as what is taught at each grade level). Reason being, if family moves from NY to Wisconsin, then kids at the same grade level can be ahead or behind. If a kid is excelling, then put them in honor classes for their subject of mastery. Enough said there as i don't want to derail the topic.

Back to teens and sex ed. Teens make up @9% of all abortions, 20-29 year olds make up 50% of all abortions, so they should be done with Sex Ed...

No issues with rape/incest or other means. remember, i want it legalized for first tri-mester. 

B/C should be readily available (free to lower income) to all women of all social classes. But i also believe in a single payer healthcare plan for all USC's... again, though different topic.

Understood Mother bears the physical aspect. That can't be helped, It's just the way we are designed. However, I also believe that the mother needs to name the father (and father tested if they deny), in order to make sure the father is at least somewhat financially responsible. 

But again, I'm giving the first tri-mester to have an abortion vs having that much upheaval in their life. Since already posted, that about 90% of all abortions are done in that time frame, I would think it's plenty of time for the mother to decide if she wants that much "upheaval" in her life or not.


60% of all abortions are first timers. the rest are predominately Mothers that have 1-2 kids already, and yes, could be using it as a means of BC rather than using contraceptives. If they know they don't want more kids, why not get the implant that lasts 5 yrs? Then you are 99% covered and only need to concern yourself with the STD side??? 

I agree with all your systemic change suggestions (birth control availability, uniform education, holding fathers responsible etc.). And those would be important implementations if abortion after X number of weeks were to be made illegal at a certain point in the future.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-04-2022, 10:16 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: I imagine Bels has put this much more eloquently in this thread or another, but the GOP has a well established track record of being at best pro-birth. Once out? They don't give a f*** about you. 

That’s always a silly argument. I’m against murder, but I don’t feel obligated to support everyone who hasn’t been murdered. That and the country spends an enormous amount on children. Having a difference of opinion on how much isn’t f*** you.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 04:31 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you admit that she's killing another person.

It depends on the case. I think there are some instances where it is justified, such as the life of the mother being in danger.

I'm glad that you finally admitted that abortion on demand is wrong and it is right that it's illegal!

The only problem is that it's illegal on the federal level but states can still make it legal.

So who gets to decide what to do in cases where you deem it to be justified?