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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you knew this was coming, right?

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/02/texas-ban-medical-abortion/

The cruelty is the point.

They’ll be after birth control next. They consider it abortive.

“Why can’t you use a condom?”

I am not a Roman Catholic but isn't the "no birth control" dictum because this would stop children from being conceived. As the RCC has ways been controlled by men, then it's men controlling women who produce the children their pedophile priests can molest
Anyone, male or female, who is pro-life should have to give 20% of their income to support all these unwanted babies whose mother's choose to keep them. And, as long as we're deciding about women's bodies then we should also have laws about men who impregnate a woman who is not his wife and castrate them and all men after impregnating their wife three times. I want laws against men as draconian as they are for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

PP is equating pro-birthers to rapists.

People who want to force women to do something they don’t want to do.

An apt comparison.

I am asking why once a woman is already pregnant it is considered more traumatic to carry the baby to term and adopt him or her into a family than aborting and ending the life of your own child. There was no rape in 99% of cases women seek abortion.

What part of "she doesn't want to be pregnant" don't you understand?

And enough with the adoption thing. That's just turning women into handmaids, and you know it.

+1. It’s so ghoulish. These people do not see anything wrong with building their families on the foundation of another woman’s agony. I don’t really know what they think they can expect from this. It is so easy to find bio families anymore with 23 and me. What happens when the adoptive child finds out the real story from their birth mom or their bio siblings and puts two and two together - that conservative mom and dad are no better than slave drivers? Do they see many happy Christmases after that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

You are so naive.

Just ask the woman in Ireland who died a slow death by sepsis because she couldn't get an abortion.

+1
I said it over in Website Feedback and I’ll say it here, too: it’s time for some of you to snap out of your stupor. You assumed that the GOP were good people who just had other beliefs; that’s false. They’re bad people with toxic misogyny at the core of their belief system.

You assumed that everyone now agreed that women were people of the same inherent worth that men have. That’s false too. These fundie duckers don’t think you’re worth jack. They think your career, your beliefs, your feelings - it’s all less important than men. (As to the fact that it’s a literal People of Praise cult member handmaiden delivering the death blow? These POSs always have a Trojan horse. Phyllis Schlafly, for one, Amy Bullcrap for another).

Multiple states have trigger laws with varying forced birth laws waiting, Sword of Damocles, to be put into law the minute the cheating GOP got Roe removed. What do you think is going to happen in those states? You think every thing is just going to be balmy winds and smooth sailing? You want to find out which unfortunate pregnant woman loses her life because of some pregnancy emergency she’s facing and the doctors don’t feel they can act on without facing a lawsuit and losing their licenses? Not every pregnant woman is going to get magically lifted over state lines to state where women are considered people. Some of you are going to die. Your ability to get an abortion because you don’t want to be pregnant is very much going to be in danger. Hope it felt good to feel smug while you pretended we spoke with hyperbole.

Actually, it is posts like these that make me less inclined to support the left.

I am, like most Americans, somewhere in the middle on abortion. I want abortion legal, but I also find the people claiming that it is the woman's choice up to the point of delivery nuts.

The simple fact is that the left hasn't been able to win the abortion debate in the public sphere and has for decades relied entirely on the Supreme Court. As long as the court rules their way it is "legitimate," but if it ever changes then suddenly it is evil incarnate, etc, etc.

There are so many other issues in the political sphere, many of them more important than abortion to me.

Perhaps if the SC does overturn Roe v Wade the proper legislative process can address the issue, that is what it is designed to do afterall.

+100
Thank you - finally, a voice of reason.

I might agree with this, except the legislative process as currently corrupted by the GOP is not able to address this issue. They have locked down minority rule since 2010 and look poised to lock it down for another 10 years. Without the court as a check, they will do whatever the hell they want because they are assured there will be no consequences.

Let’s frame things differently, would you be Ok with the state legislature of say, New York or California deciding what’s an appropriate exercise of your religious freedoms or gun rights? The Constitution doesn’t say anything about homeschooling. And like it or not, it does talk about gun ownership in the same breath as the “well regulated militia”. The Court definitely overstepped when it invented rights that didn’t exist at the Founding in these areas. Maybe we should just leave those determinations to the state legislatures too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am asking why once a woman is already pregnant it is considered more traumatic to carry the baby to term and adopt him or her into a family than aborting and ending the life of your own child. There was no rape in 99% of cases women seek abortion.

DP here. And it's because for the majority of people who get abortion (actually, for the majority of Americans), fetus =/= child. They don't view getting an abortion as being the same as ending the life of a child. Many religions are very clear on the point when a baby becomes a human, and for most of them it's after birth. Insisting that fetus=child is 100% putting your religious beliefs on another person, and it's a violation of my First Amendment right to force me to subscribe to a different view than my religious beliefs dictate.

From a secular standpoint, we can still decide as a society to make abortion illegal, but we cannot do so while appealing to theological arguments. And the reality is that most Americans don't want the logistical consequences of banning abortion. When the details come to light, they want exceptions (which are practically very difficult to enforce).

So all of the arguments that anyone makes to ban abortion are either religiously motivated, ignorant of reality, or disingenuous. I think the loudest voices are people who care so little for what the US stands for and our Constitution that they see no problem forcing their religious beliefs on everyone, but many of them have become sophisticated enough to at least pretend not to use religious arguments. Then there are people like you, who don't even realize what you are doing...but you expose the entire movement with your language.

[Anonymous]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/05/roe-v-wade-democrats-2022-elections-523759

Dem strategists saying curtailing abortion rights will not help gin up voters for 2022

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/05/roe-v-wade-democrats-2022-elections-523759

Dem strategists saying curtailing abortion rights will not help gin up voters for 2022

I believe it. Many Dems already live in places where their abortion rights are safe. I am personally having trouble ginning up sympathy for the women in Mississippi and Texas. They made their bed, they can lie in it with their garbage spouses, wrecked bodies, and profoundly disabled children if that’s what they really want.

When the Virginia legislature under Youngkin tries bringing back the vaginal ultrasounds and makes a mockery of us again, you’ll see the issue start to matter again for Northern Virginia women. Might take a few years but inevitably the religious nuts will overstep and the backlash will be enormous. I’m seeing IVF, gay adoption, and publicly funded religious charter schools as the likely triggers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/05/roe-v-wade-democrats-2022-elections-523759

Dem strategists saying curtailing abortion rights will not help gin up voters for 2022

I believe it. Many Dems already live in places where their abortion rights are safe. I am personally having trouble ginning up sympathy for the women in Mississippi and Texas. They made their bed, they can lie in it with their garbage spouses, wrecked bodies, and profoundly disabled children if that’s what they really want.

When the Virginia legislature under Youngkin tries bringing back the vaginal ultrasounds and makes a mockery of us again, you’ll see the issue start to matter again for Northern Virginia women. Might take a few years but inevitably the religious nuts will overstep and the backlash will be enormous. I’m seeing IVF, gay adoption, and publicly funded religious charter schools as the likely triggers.

Except not everyone in Texas is a vile Republican. It will hurt people who aren't responsible for their disgusting government.

[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:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Try doing it from Texas. When every neighboring state has a law already in place that will automatically make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

Oh, I hadn’t realized Texas had closed its borders.

Do you realize that places in Texas are very far from other states? And that virtually all those states will outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned?

DP. Evidence for this absurd statement?

“Absurd.”

“Absurd.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The “moderate” and “reasonable” voices on here sound like either women in total and complete denial of what’s happening or like forced birthers who don’t like the fact that their disgusting politics are laid bare.

Exactly.

Wake TF up and see what the GOP has been doing. 2021 had the highest number of anti-abortion laws EVER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding “the left hasn’t won the abortion debate”


That is not true. 70% of Americans support Roe.
The left has absolutely won the debate.
And as for legislation being passed to solidify Roe, does anyone think those laws wouldn’t be struck down by this court?

Excellent point. These activist judges DGAF about what Americans want. They just want to push their religion on the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

The current tech we have now is much better than the 70s with roe vs Wayne, we can detectt and prevent pregnancy very early so this needs to be updated. Furthmore we need a scientific study to determine what age a fetus feels pain or reacts and when a fetus is not viable that would make the most sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

PP is equating pro-birthers to rapists.

People who want to force women to do something they don’t want to do.

An apt comparison.

I am asking why once a woman is already pregnant it is considered more traumatic to carry the baby to term and adopt him or her into a family than aborting and ending the life of your own child. There was no rape in 99% of cases women seek abortion.

If you are FORCING a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to do, then it's extremely traumatic.

Some would even equate it to RAPE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “moderate” and “reasonable” voices on here sound like either women in total and complete denial of what’s happening or like forced birthers who don’t like the fact that their disgusting politics are laid bare.

Exactly.

Wake TF up and see what the GOP has been doing. 2021 had the highest number of anti-abortion laws EVER.

Logical sense would be to allow abortions to lower the poor's and minority's that vote against the Republican so I am not sure about this logic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

PP is equating pro-birthers to rapists.

People who want to force women to do something they don’t want to do.

An apt comparison.

I am asking why once a woman is already pregnant it is considered more traumatic to carry the baby to term and adopt him or her into a family than aborting and ending the life of your own child. There was no rape in 99% of cases women seek abortion.

If you are FORCING a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to do, then it's extremely traumatic.

Some would even equate it to RAPE.

There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

PP is equating pro-birthers to rapists.

People who want to force women to do something they don’t want to do.

An apt comparison.

I am asking why once a woman is already pregnant it is considered more traumatic to carry the baby to term and adopt him or her into a family than aborting and ending the life of your own child. There was no rape in 99% of cases women seek abortion.

If you are FORCING a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to do, then it's extremely traumatic.

Some would even equate it to RAPE.

There should be a scientific study to determine when life begins, you can try fetal reaction and do things like train in the womb. That would settle it when it's woman body vs baby's body.

Simple. Life begins when a baby can survive without being in a woman’s body. What is that now? 28 weeks?