“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious........

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the majority of states will charge the criminal with TWO homicides.

The majority of states have fetal homicide laws.

If the unborn has no rights, why is this the case?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Some of these laws were passed by forced birthers to lay the foundation for people like you to one day undermine abortion rights...

Why don't you share what happens during an abortion. Stick to facts.

you don't seem to get it. we don't care...we want to make choices over our body ourselves

We get that a growing baby doesn't matter to you.

The mother “matters” more. We get that you DGAF about her.

If the mothers life is in danger, that's another issue than abortion on demand.

DP. Pregnancy Carrie’s inherent risks, and in many cases you won’t know a woman’s life is in dangerous until she’s literally on the verge of dying. Why should, any woman be obligated to take on that risk to her life and health for the sole benefit of someone else?

Correct. This decision means that no one has a right to the healthcare of their choosing. It’s absurd. Of course we do. The state can regulate healthcare if it has a compelling reason. That is not the test applied here. Alito says no rights involved, no balancing of interests required. Utterly radical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

Can a fetus get a social security number?
Is a man responsible for fetus support?

No?

Then it isn't a life in the eyes of the government.

Some of you need to stop it with the argument that a social security number is the defining feature of when the government recognizes personhood. It’s wrong and gives cover to MAGA voters that want to pull rights from documented snd undocumented immigrants. Due Process in 15th applies to all persons. If you want to argue that personhood starts at birth, please do that argument instead. Some of us disagree and think that after viability, states should be able to balance the rights of the mother with a viable fetus which is why Roe/Casey was a good balance.

But the argument that those without a social security number is not recognized as life in the eyes of the government is just false.

The point is, both the US government and the US Constitution recognize "life" at birth. The pro-lifers want to make it something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If scotus is saying that each state can decide, then they're saying it's not inherently illegal. Which means that they can make it legal at all levels. It doesn't matter when life begins if the states can decide anyway so they should just keep Roe v Wade.
Nowhere in the ruling does it talk about the beginning of life? That's not even an issue because it doesn't matter

You are missing the link where many states have automatic kick-in or trigger laws that will make abortion illegal once Roe is formally overturned.

Please pay attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

Can a fetus get a social security number?
Is a man responsible for fetus support?

No?

Then it isn't a life in the eyes of the government.

When I have life growing inside me, I don't let a social security number determine if it's a baby or not.

Good for you. I'm not telling you how to feel about your pregnancy so stop telling other women how to feel about theirs

Life is life, regardless of how you want to spin it to minimize what happens to aborted babies.

Not legally, and laws are what we’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YLS may want to start rethinking their admissions policy. The thread below is insane. Hard to believe these people are future lawyers.

Yeah right. The author is a POC and you are coming after her. YLS is doing just fine with people like Shyamala. Take your outrage elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

Can a fetus get a social security number?
Is a man responsible for fetus support?

No?

Then it isn't a life in the eyes of the government.

Some of you need to stop it with the argument that a social security number is the defining feature of when the government recognizes personhood. It’s wrong and gives cover to MAGA voters that want to pull rights from documented snd undocumented immigrants. Due Process in 15th applies to all persons. If you want to argue that personhood starts at birth, please do that argument instead. Some of us disagree and think that after viability, states should be able to balance the rights of the mother with a viable fetus which is why Roe/Casey was a good balance.

But the argument that those without a social security number is not recognized as life in the eyes of the government is just false.

The point is, both the US government and the US Constitution recognize "life" at birth. The pro-lifers want to make it something else.

Then say that. Not a false argument about equating personhood and rights to SSNs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

Can a fetus get a social security number?
Is a man responsible for fetus support?

No?

Then it isn't a life in the eyes of the government.

Some of you need to stop it with the argument that a social security number is the defining feature of when the government recognizes personhood. It’s wrong and gives cover to MAGA voters that want to pull rights from documented snd undocumented immigrants. Due Process in 15th applies to all persons. If you want to argue that personhood starts at birth, please do that argument instead. Some of us disagree and think that after viability, states should be able to balance the rights of the mother with a viable fetus which is why Roe/Casey was a good balance.

But the argument that those without a social security number is not recognized as life in the eyes of the government is just false.

+1. When people are immigrating to the US, it takes them a while to get SSNs. We cant just shoot them while they are waiting though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YLS may want to start rethinking their admissions policy. The thread below is insane. Hard to believe these people are future lawyers.

Free speech.

If I ever see Alito in person I will scream at him until his ears bleed.

Alito is now the new Hitler, the new Mussolini.

I will not have my liberty downgraded because he is a sexist pig.

I will not be willingly enslaved.

Just move to Maryland or DC. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm basically fine with the RvW situation. I dont think the religious argument for abortion is a good one because pro-lifers almost never invoke religion. Even within these anonymous threads, the concept of religion as a factor is introduced by the left.

I do think a good.argument is that we dont require people to donate blood or bone marrow, or even organs after they are dead. These things are necessary for the lives of others in an unfortunate medical situation. If you extend this argument out to women and their fetuses, you can create a logic train that would make it a woman's choice alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious........

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the majority of states will charge the criminal with TWO homicides.

The majority of states have fetal homicide laws.

If the unborn has no rights, why is this the case?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Some of these laws were passed by forced birthers to lay the foundation for people like you to one day undermine abortion rights...

Why don't you share what happens during an abortion. Stick to facts.

you don't seem to get it. we don't care...we want to make choices over our body ourselves

We get that a growing baby doesn't matter to you.

The mother “matters” more. We get that you DGAF about her.

If the mothers life is in danger, that's another issue than abortion on demand.

You seem to think "demand" is a bad word, when in fact you are demanding women give up 9 months of their lives to put their body through a grueling process that could kill them, and at the very least will take several months to recover from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YLS may want to start rethinking their admissions policy. The thread below is insane. Hard to believe these people are future lawyers.

Free speech.

If I ever see Alito in person I will scream at him until his ears bleed.

Alito is now the new Hitler, the new Mussolini.

I will not have my liberty downgraded because he is a sexist pig.

I will not be willingly enslaved.

Just move to Maryland or DC. Problem solved.

"just"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YLS may want to start rethinking their admissions policy. The thread below is insane. Hard to believe these people are future lawyers.

Free speech.

If I ever see Alito in person I will scream at him until his ears bleed.

Alito is now the new Hitler, the new Mussolini.

I will not have my liberty downgraded because he is a sexist pig.

I will not be willingly enslaved.

So Hitler killed millions as did abortion

As did Mother Nature (or God if you believe in her). Did you know between 50-90% of all conceptions never make it to birth? Crazy, big-time inefficient way to reproduce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious........

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the majority of states will charge the criminal with TWO homicides.

The majority of states have fetal homicide laws.

If the unborn has no rights, why is this the case?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Some of those dame states want to charge a pregnant woman with homicide if they get an abortion

Quick question. If a woman dies in childbirth should the baby be charged with manslaughter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YLS may want to start rethinking their admissions policy. The thread below is insane. Hard to believe these people are future lawyers.

Free speech.

If I ever see Alito in person I will scream at him until his ears bleed.

Alito is now the new Hitler, the new Mussolini.

I will not have my liberty downgraded because he is a sexist pig.

I will not be willingly enslaved.

Just move to Maryland or DC. Problem solved.

"just"

Lets be honest. Anyone that worked up about this probably wouldnt live in Virginia when DC and Maryland are *right there.*

[Anonymous]

The point is, both the US government and the US Constitution recognize "life" at birth.

The Constitution recognizes citizenship at birth. Not what you said.

Keep pretending a baby isn’t alive before he or she is born. You’re doing a fine job making pro-choice people look bad.