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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm are the Republicans softening their string up the leaker rhetoric?

Funny that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm are the Republicans softening their string up the leaker rhetoric?

Funny that.

+1 It’s also funny that I asked that same question several times in this thread and none of the Rs raving about it could answer me, so now I have something in common with Matt Gaetz <SHUDDER>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

DP here. What kind of insanity is this?!

Women are not getting abortions because they are confused about what a fetus is or view babies as disposable. I'd argue, quite the opposite, they are extremely well-aware of what a big responsibility it is to gestate, deliver, and care for a baby. My goodness...how dumb do you think American women are?

The PP wasn't talking about all women , dumbass. Clearly the proponents of abortion are using a change such as "my body, my choice" which precludes the recognition that there is another body/life involved.

What people who are for women's bodily autonomy are saying is that a woman's body has precedence over the fetus inside it. That fetus is a potential threat to a woman's life or body and therefore the woman gets to say if she is willing to take on that risk. The government doesn't get to force people to go through a potentially dangerous process that involves pain and suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.

Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.

Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.

The supreme court needs to be freed from these unevolved old timey dinosaurs.

It’s not that they’re old timey dinosaurs, it’s that they’re fascists.

If by fascists you mean anyone you don't like.

No, by fascists we all mean people that are abusing their power to force, by violence in the case of forced birth, their world view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

DP here. What kind of insanity is this?!

Women are not getting abortions because they are confused about what a fetus is or view babies as disposable. I'd argue, quite the opposite, they are extremely well-aware of what a big responsibility it is to gestate, deliver, and care for a baby. My goodness...how dumb do you think American women are?

The PP wasn't talking about all women , dumbass. Clearly the proponents of abortion are using a change such as "my body, my choice" which precludes the recognition that there is another body/life involved.

What people who are for women's bodily autonomy are saying is that a woman's body has precedence over the fetus inside it. That fetus is a potential threat to a woman's life or body and therefore the woman gets to say if she is willing to take on that risk. The government doesn't get to force people to go through a potentially dangerous process that involves pain and suffering.

+1 Forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity according to the United Nations.

[Anonymous]

It’s like the Crusades. Religious fanatics trying to overthrow other people and force their religion on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm are the Republicans softening their string up the leaker rhetoric?

I am old enough to remember about 150 pages ago on this very thread when the republicans where shocked SHOCKED at the leaking and vowed to expose the leakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

DP here. What kind of insanity is this?!

Women are not getting abortions because they are confused about what a fetus is or view babies as disposable. I'd argue, quite the opposite, they are extremely well-aware of what a big responsibility it is to gestate, deliver, and care for a baby. My goodness...how dumb do you think American women are?

The PP wasn't talking about all women , dumbass. Clearly the proponents of abortion are using a change such as "my body, my choice" which precludes the recognition that there is another body/life involved.

No, PP pretty clearly said that using terminology that says "fetus =/= child" somehow changes women's understanding of their pregnancies in a way that makes it easier for them to have an abortion. I think that's complete BS. What evidence is there to support it? This view has led to legislation forcing women to undergo unnecessary medical procedures such as transvaginal u/s to force women to see their developing fetus before seeking an abortion. As if they were confused about what's going on in their bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

[Anonymous]

I had two miscarriages. Would I have been prosecuted if this happened in a post-Roe world? Would the fascists have to investigate to make sure I hadn't murdered my fetus? These were wanted pregnancies, but I'm guessing I would be treated like a criminal for these miscarriages if they happened after Roe is struck down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

Why do you care?

If, say, we were able to extract a fertilized egg from a woman's uterus right after conception, then grow that embryo in the lab into a full-term baby, would you pay for that process? It would cost some money, but hey, you're saving a "baby." And when that baby reaches full term in that laboratory, will you pay the costs to raise and educate that child? Someone has to. Why not you if you care so much about that "baby"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Not going to agree to that. This baby was born from a fertilized embryo that had been in a freezer for 27 years. Human life if kept in a freezer for 27 years would die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

No, I will not agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Not going to agree to that. This baby was born from a fertilized embryo that had been in a freezer for 27 years. Human life if kept in a freezer for 27 years would die.

It’s a bit like a butterfly and a caterpillar. Different forms with different abilities but at the end of the day they are the same.