SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)

[Anonymous]

I think it's key to mention insurance companies don't consider the baby a person until it's out of the mother's body. Then the baby has to be insured separately. They seem to know when billable life begins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

Under his eye, Commander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

Except when Dems force medical treatments on our bodies right? Because really it's DEMS right to chose what women must do to their bodies.

Forced injections = okay

No abortion available = not okay.

Is that how your freedom in bodies works?

Would GOP forcing Deprovera shots on women be cool too? It would prevent all those maternal hemorrhaging deaths. And obviously unwanted pregnancies

+1000

I’m firmly and vocally pro-choice but Democrats have been utter tyrants re: Covid. Bodily autonomy for ALL. Both parties are inconsistent on this. After tormenting my family- and many many others especially children- for almost 2 years, I am very much enjoying the Dem handwringing over abortion. Nice to see y’all get a taste of your own medicine.

You're a ghoulish freak. Plenty of people who are against COVID-related restrictions and mandates also rely on family planning services that will be affected by this. Hopefully your family too, given your zest for retribution .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

It's a huge difference, actually.

No, it isn’t. If life is devalued because it requires the assistance of others to be sustained, then it doesn’t matter what form that assistance takes. Otherwise, you are arguing that it is not okay to burden one body but it is okay to burden another body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth. And, shocker!, some freaks actually make the argument that post birth abortion should be legal using this very argument.

I’ve only seen forced birther trolls making this argument, as they’re the only people stupid enough to fall for this nonsense, just like they’re the only people stupid enough to understand the difference between “parasitical entity within a woman’s body wholly dependent upon her and her alone for oxygen, nutrients and waste removal” and “a kid who anyone can care for.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

It's a huge difference, actually.

No, it isn’t. If life is devalued because it requires the assistance of others to be sustained, then it doesn’t matter what form that assistance takes. Otherwise, you are arguing that it is not okay to burden one body but it is okay to burden another body.

Do you also favor requiring someone to give up an organ if someone else needs a transplant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

Except when Dems force medical treatments on our bodies right? Because really it's DEMS right to chose what women must do to their bodies.

Forced injections = okay

No abortion available = not okay.

Is that how your freedom in bodies works?

Would GOP forcing Deprovera shots on women be cool too? It would prevent all those maternal hemorrhaging deaths. And obviously unwanted pregnancies

+1000

I’m firmly and vocally pro-choice but Democrats have been utter tyrants re: Covid. Bodily autonomy for ALL. Both parties are inconsistent on this. After tormenting my family- and many many others especially children- for almost 2 years, I am very much enjoying the Dem handwringing over abortion. Nice to see y’all get a taste of your own medicine.

It’s almost like covid is a germ or something that can transmitted through the air whereas a pregnancy really only affects the woman in whom it resides. So it’s almost like these two things are completely unrelated.

Oh hey look at that. These two things are completely unrelated. You’re just maga, despite being pro-choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

It's a huge difference, actually.

No, it isn’t. If life is devalued because it requires the assistance of others to be sustained, then it doesn’t matter what form that assistance takes. Otherwise, you are arguing that it is not okay to burden one body but it is okay to burden another body.

Do you also favor requiring someone to give up an organ if someone else needs a transplant?

If the person giving up the organ causes the need for the organ transplant in the first place, sure, I’d be open to that conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. If life is devalued because it requires the assistance of others to be sustained, then it doesn’t matter what form that assistance takes. Otherwise, you are arguing that it is not okay to burden one body but it is okay to burden another body.

So you agree with the devil’s handmaiden that pregnancy and birth take no physical, emotional and mental toll on a woman’s body, nor does it affect her financial position? Just how disposable do you think children are that you think they can just be grown and disposed of, left to some nutter to do god knows what to? You like to think you’re advocating for being compassionate and caring, when the reality is that you’re advocating bodily slavery in the name of someone else’s religion, based on that other religion’s beliefs about ensoulment and gender politics, to say nothing of what happens in a lot of adoptive homes. That’s a unique torture you want to commit upon women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

It's a huge difference, actually.

No, it isn’t. If life is devalued because it requires the assistance of others to be sustained, then it doesn’t matter what form that assistance takes. Otherwise, you are arguing that it is not okay to burden one body but it is okay to burden another body.

Do you also favor requiring someone to give up an organ if someone else needs a transplant?

If the person giving up the organ causes the need for the organ transplant in the first place, sure, I’d be open to that conversation.

Rape victims don’t cause the need for abortion either. Or are you one of those weirdos who believe that rape victims bodies can shut down the pregnancy of it so chooses?

Also, I suspect you hold men harmless for pregnancy even though they cause 100% of all unwanted pregnancies. I can tell from your generalized misogyny

[Anonymous]

Of contraception fails, did the mother choose the pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

It's a huge difference, actually.

No, it isn’t. If life is devalued because it requires the assistance of others to be sustained, then it doesn’t matter what form that assistance takes. Otherwise, you are arguing that it is not okay to burden one body but it is okay to burden another body.

Do you also favor requiring someone to give up an organ if someone else needs a transplant?

If the person giving up the organ causes the need for the organ transplant in the first place, sure, I’d be open to that conversation.

Rape victims don’t cause the need for abortion either. Or are you one of those weirdos who believe that rape victims bodies can shut down the pregnancy of it so chooses?

Also, I suspect you hold men harmless for pregnancy even though they cause 100% of all unwanted pregnancies. I can tell from your generalized misogyny

And I’m the one accused of not arguing in good faith! An abortion exception related to health and rape is fine with me.

I don’t excuse men from their part in this. Society’s laws are such that the moment a man has sex he has consented to the responsibility of parenthood. Men don’t get a 9 month period to disclaim their offspring, control the planning of when and how to have children, etc. Post-sex male family planning doesn’t even register as a concept in our society (nor should it ever). The only legal manner a father can disclaim a child is after a birth mother decided to place the child for adoption. I have no problem with these laws and wish we had stronger legal mechanisms to make sure fathers provide at least monetary support for their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

It's a huge difference, actually.

No, it isn’t. If life is devalued because it requires the assistance of others to be sustained, then it doesn’t matter what form that assistance takes. Otherwise, you are arguing that it is not okay to burden one body but it is okay to burden another body.

Do you also favor requiring someone to give up an organ if someone else needs a transplant?

If the person giving up the organ causes the need for the organ transplant in the first place, sure, I’d be open to that conversation.

Rape victims don’t cause the need for abortion either. Or are you one of those weirdos who believe that rape victims bodies can shut down the pregnancy of it so chooses?

Also, I suspect you hold men harmless for pregnancy even though they cause 100% of all unwanted pregnancies. I can tell from your generalized misogyny

And I’m the one accused of not arguing in good faith! An abortion exception related to health and rape is fine with me.

I don’t excuse men from their part in this. Society’s laws are such that the moment a man has sex he has consented to the responsibility of parenthood. Men don’t get a 9 month period to disclaim their offspring, control the planning of when and how to have children, etc. Post-sex male family planning doesn’t even register as a concept in our society (nor should it ever). The only legal manner a father can disclaim a child is after a birth mother decided to place the child for adoption. I have no problem with these laws and wish we had stronger legal mechanisms to make sure fathers provide at least monetary support for their children.

What LAW is this? Bc the only laws I know of are the affidavit of parentage or DNA testing. Legally, he has no obligations to ANYONE until a child, who must be born and alive, is deemed "his" either by DNA and a judge or him self-certifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth.

Of course children need “assistance after birth” but that “assistance” doesn’t need to come from the person in whose uterus it’s growing. That’s why adoption has always existed for women who choose it.

Thats a distinction without a difference. If a life needing assistance from another life devalues the former, it doesn’t matter which life it needs assistance from. Again, a very scary argument to make especially when taken to its logical conclusion.

It's a huge difference, actually.

No, it isn’t. If life is devalued because it requires the assistance of others to be sustained, then it doesn’t matter what form that assistance takes. Otherwise, you are arguing that it is not okay to burden one body but it is okay to burden another body.

Do you also favor requiring someone to give up an organ if someone else needs a transplant?

If the person giving up the organ causes the need for the organ transplant in the first place, sure, I’d be open to that conversation.

Rape victims don’t cause the need for abortion either. Or are you one of those weirdos who believe that rape victims bodies can shut down the pregnancy of it so chooses?

Also, I suspect you hold men harmless for pregnancy even though they cause 100% of all unwanted pregnancies. I can tell from your generalized misogyny

And I’m the one accused of not arguing in good faith! An abortion exception related to health and rape is fine with me.

I don’t excuse men from their part in this. Society’s laws are such that the moment a man has sex he has consented to the responsibility of parenthood. Men don’t get a 9 month period to disclaim their offspring, control the planning of when and how to have children, etc. Post-sex male family planning doesn’t even register as a concept in our society (nor should it ever). The only legal manner a father can disclaim a child is after a birth mother decided to place the child for adoption. I have no problem with these laws and wish we had stronger legal mechanisms to make sure fathers provide at least monetary support for their children.

What LAW is this? Bc the only laws I know of are the affidavit of parentage or DNA testing. Legally, he has no obligations to ANYONE until a child, who must be born and alive, is deemed "his" either by DNA and a judge or him self-certifying.

Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

Except when Dems force medical treatments on our bodies right? Because really it's DEMS right to chose what women must do to their bodies.

Forced injections = okay

No abortion available = not okay.

Is that how your freedom in bodies works?

Would GOP forcing Deprovera shots on women be cool too? It would prevent all those maternal hemorrhaging deaths. And obviously unwanted pregnancies

There is a Constitutional right to an abortion. There is no Constitutional right to refuse a vaccine in the face of a destructive global pandemic.

People with a brain disagree. Even those who support Roe on principle acknowledges that the decision was wrong.

Where in the Constitution is the right to an abortion? Where is it?