Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there have been pain studies of preterm infants before 25 weeks who do seem to indicate pain responses. But again, we can't know and while I think it is wrong to dismiss the possibility because it makes you [general] look rigid and unwilling to accept new info, it is not a strong argument because of how the procedure is performed AND the use of analgesics to dull pain.

Christ save us from these people. Studies done on infants. Infants are different than fetuses. If you doubt this, if you truly think that birth changes no systems, maybe consider that a fetus isn’t breathing with its lungs in utero.

And again: 92% of abortions occur at less than 13 weeks. The ones that occur later occurred because forced birthers just couldn’t stop themselves from inventing every conceivable (no pun intended) barrier possible. 8 week fetuses, which are really 6 weeks old, do not have pain receptors.

Did you read anything I wrote in the above and collapsed posts or just jump to being ornery? In another post, I am alos quite clear that all the science in the world won't change someone's mind if they have any contradictory study to fall back on, so it is more efficient and persuasive to throw analgesics their way. That way, you can see if you are in fact dealing with a good faith argument (and there are some people who truly believe fetuses are in pain but lean towards pro-choice...I know I'd like to get through to those people)>

I did read the posts, thanks. It’s dear that you still have optimism for those people, but I have long since given up hope. They don’t understand why women have late abortions, they don’t seem to understand that all abortion is functionally illegal in multiple states at all gestational ages and for any reason. There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of critical thinking among the fence sitters. They seem confused and shocked about this decision and its implications and they remain ignorant on a whole host of other issues because they like it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Younger generations have been more pro-life than their parents. The politics of this may not play out as intended.

On the other hand, this will lead to the birth of more babies that will grow up to vote for Democrats.

If younger generations have been more anti-abortion, it's because they don't have memories of the desperation of relatives and friends with unwanted pregnancies, or of those who died or nearly died or lost their uterus because of botched back-alley abortions, or don't know of people whose lives were derailed because of being forced to bring a pregnancy to term. Now let's see what happens when they learn of the consequences of denying women safe abortions.

It’s easy to have opinions when you don’t have to face consequences for them. Abortion is gone now in half the country. Can’t take it for granted that someone’s going to be around to defend it so you can have the luxury of being pro life every day except the one you have your needed and justified abortion.

Reminds me of all the people refusing to vax their kids. It’s easy to brag about natural immunity and “toxic chemicals” until your kid is blind for measles or permanently disfigured from tetanus.

+1

Although the youngsters I know are already very pro choice, watching their friends scramble is going to make them even more liberal.

If regressives were already afraid of the next generation’s refusal of the binary gender construct we all grew up with, wait till they see what happens to the politics of these kids when they realize that the GOP is codifying “barefoot and pregnant” into law.

[Anonymous]

Why is anyone surprised? Seriously with the electoral college republicans are actually making bets that this won’t backfire. But let’s see. The linguistic dance “I am pro choice of blah blah” frankly doesn’t cut it. This is a yes/no issue. As a liberal, I hate to say this but I noticed that my party somehow decided not to talk about women issues in clear terms. We are trying to lump women issues with a bunch of other stuff and lose focus. Republicans are not distracted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks a lot to all the indy wine drinking suburban moms who voted for this POS corporate raider: "Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin said he will seek legislation on abortion"

https://www.wtvr.com/news/virginia-politics/virginia-governor-glenn-youngkin-to-seek-abortion-legislation

The first clue should have been that his LT Governor is bat shit crazy and can't get through an interview about choice without becoming tearful.

We told "moms." But no, they decided he was a moderate. Welp.

Youngkin has delivered on school closures and masks, keeping advanced math, and more.
Now there will be another election where abortion will be an issue, as the state senate is majority Democrat control, currently.

LOL, he did not deliver. It so happened that those mandates went away at that time. Are you really that gullible?

They already said they voted for Youngkin.

They’re MoDeRaTe. They don’t like how extreme the Democrats are. They don’t like how the Democrats are tOo MoDeRaTe. They’re Republicans, tarted up and day drunk to dull the pain of their internalized misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there have been pain studies of preterm infants before 25 weeks who do seem to indicate pain responses. But again, we can't know and while I think it is wrong to dismiss the possibility because it makes you [general] look rigid and unwilling to accept new info, it is not a strong argument because of how the procedure is performed AND the use of analgesics to dull pain.

Christ save us from these people. Studies done on infants. Infants are different than fetuses. If you doubt this, if you truly think that birth changes no systems, maybe consider that a fetus isn’t breathing with its lungs in utero.

And again: 92% of abortions occur at less than 13 weeks. The ones that occur later occurred because forced birthers just couldn’t stop themselves from inventing every conceivable (no pun intended) barrier possible. 8 week fetuses, which are really 6 weeks old, do not have pain receptors.

Did you read anything I wrote in the above and collapsed posts or just jump to being ornery? In another post, I am alos quite clear that all the science in the world won't change someone's mind if they have any contradictory study to fall back on, so it is more efficient and persuasive to throw analgesics their way. That way, you can see if you are in fact dealing with a good faith argument (and there are some people who truly believe fetuses are in pain but lean towards pro-choice...I know I'd like to get through to those people)>

I did read the posts, thanks. It’s dear that you still have optimism for those people, but I have long since given up hope. They don’t understand why women have late abortions, they don’t seem to understand that all abortion is functionally illegal in multiple states at all gestational ages and for any reason. There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of critical thinking among the fence sitters. They seem confused and shocked about this decision and its implications and they remain ignorant on a whole host of other issues because they like it that way.

I agree in my heart, but nothing is going to ever change unless we keep dialogue open. Not acceptance, not agreement, but dialogue. We can't all keep retreating into our corners. We can be right and win the argument, but lose the war because we are not effective. Which is pretty much where we are now.

And we don't need to change people's minds about abortion. The majority is on that side. We need to keep dialogues open because voting matters more than ever and we need people to vote with us, not against us.

[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:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

The right to reproduce is the most basic right of all, next to the right to live. Everything else is meaningless. Abortion is baked into the human experience. It’s not surprising to me the Founders took it for granted. In fact, until very recently this obsession with fetuses was a fringe Catholic belief only.

And not even really a Catholic belief. When my grandmother had a miscarriage in 1931, did anyone act like it was a death of a child? No. When my mom had one in 1966, did anyone? No. It's only very recently that Catholics have gone in for those "angel in heaven" and prayer services for miscarried fetuses. All that stuff came *after* the massive anti-abortion movement, which was thoroughly astrotufed by Republicans who needed a rallying cry post-Nixon to rebuild the party.

You are wrong. Their catechism holds that abortion is a grave sin and murder. It’s not a fringe belief. Don’t let them off the hook for using their religion to endanger the lives of women, people who they believe are less equal than men.

Half of Catholics supported Roe in 1973 and half of them support it today.

Roe was good law. It recognized a fundamental liberty while allowing the state to intervene in some limited cases. The controversy was never about the rights at stake it was always about the limits. Now states have a blank check. It’s utter insanity. The posters crowing about Roe being bad law lack any understanding of the law.

But you see, regressive voters have always hated that women don’t have to get married any more. They hate that they can’t demand sex of their wives. They hate that women can have bank accounts and they hate that women out perform them at work. They hate feminism and want women barefoot and pregnant. This is about punishing women for being women.

[Anonymous]

Susan Collins is very disappointed

She can't really be serious here. She CANNOT be serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, after the suctioning of 63 million growing babies

STFU you total POS!!

those were fetuses, not "babies"

grow a brain and learn the difference

I've been pregnant 3 times. Not once did any of my doctors (male or female) refer to my pregnancy with the word fetus.

Mine did.

But sounds like your pregnancies were wanted. Sounds like you were willing to gestate them to term, to go through labor and delivery, to have your body changed, to accept the danger of pregnancy and birthing, and to take on the responsibility of raising children. Not all women accept those things, and no government should be able to force them to.

Those doctors did nit know what I was thinking or planning to do when they first saw me.

Noticed that you didn't address the question of other women not accepting the choice you made to undergo a potentially life-threatening process.

No, because that's not what I was addressing. I'll say it again, no doctor, female or male, ever referred to my "fetus."

So? Why should we care?

Women who want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that will allow them to sustain them and give birth to a healthy baby.

Women who DO NOT want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that allow them to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

Women who want their pregnancies, but come to find that their pregnancies will result in a child that is not viable outside of the womb OR that the pregnancy may jeopardize their life should have access to the medical treatments that allow th to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

PERIOD.

So sick of "prolifers" putting the "rights" of a pregnancy above those of a fully formed, independent adult woman.

You should care because describing a growing baby as "just a fetus" is not accurate. Of course, that's not saying you can't maintain your pro abortion stance anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, after the suctioning of 63 million growing babies

STFU you total POS!!

those were fetuses, not "babies"

grow a brain and learn the difference

I've been pregnant 3 times. Not once did any of my doctors (male or female) refer to my pregnancy with the word fetus.

Mine did.

But sounds like your pregnancies were wanted. Sounds like you were willing to gestate them to term, to go through labor and delivery, to have your body changed, to accept the danger of pregnancy and birthing, and to take on the responsibility of raising children. Not all women accept those things, and no government should be able to force them to.

Those doctors did nit know what I was thinking or planning to do when they first saw me.

Noticed that you didn't address the question of other women not accepting the choice you made to undergo a potentially life-threatening process.

No, because that's not what I was addressing. I'll say it again, no doctor, female or male, ever referred to my "fetus."

So? Why should we care?

Women who want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that will allow them to sustain them and give birth to a healthy baby.

Women who DO NOT want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that allow them to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

Women who want their pregnancies, but come to find that their pregnancies will result in a child that is not viable outside of the womb OR that the pregnancy may jeopardize their life should have access to the medical treatments that allow th to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

PERIOD.

So sick of "prolifers" putting the "rights" of a pregnancy above those of a fully formed, independent adult woman.

You should care because describing a growing baby as "just a fetus" is not accurate. Of course, that's not saying you can't maintain your pro abortion stance anyway

A growing baby is a one or two week old or three or four month old. A baby in utero is a growing fetus and I am sorry these facts and accurate terms mess up your sloppy attempts at equivocation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Susan Collins is very disappointed

She can't really be serious here. She CANNOT be serious.

Susan Collins is disingenuous and malicious AF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, after the suctioning of 63 million growing babies

STFU you total POS!!

those were fetuses, not "babies"

grow a brain and learn the difference

I've been pregnant 3 times. Not once did any of my doctors (male or female) refer to my pregnancy with the word fetus.

Mine did.

But sounds like your pregnancies were wanted. Sounds like you were willing to gestate them to term, to go through labor and delivery, to have your body changed, to accept the danger of pregnancy and birthing, and to take on the responsibility of raising children. Not all women accept those things, and no government should be able to force them to.

Those doctors did nit know what I was thinking or planning to do when they first saw me.

Noticed that you didn't address the question of other women not accepting the choice you made to undergo a potentially life-threatening process.

No, because that's not what I was addressing. I'll say it again, no doctor, female or male, ever referred to my "fetus."

You don’t need to keep repeating yourself. No one cares that you had doctors who played fast and loose with vocabulary. Mine called my fetus “little chicken.” That does not mean that it was literally a chicken.

Oh, but you can keep repeating your views, right??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have the technology to prevent pregnancy much better than in 1970, this of what we did in 1970 vs now.

Clarence Thomas has already stated that he believes the court should rethink the ruling that allowed contraception (and same-sex marriage). All the technology cannot stop the right-wing nut jobs from desperately clinging to their power "to keep women in their place".

Sad day indeed.

I cannot say this loud or often enough - Vote! Vote! Vote!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, after the suctioning of 63 million growing babies

STFU you total POS!!

those were fetuses, not "babies"

grow a brain and learn the difference

I've been pregnant 3 times. Not once did any of my doctors (male or female) refer to my pregnancy with the word fetus.

Mine did.

But sounds like your pregnancies were wanted. Sounds like you were willing to gestate them to term, to go through labor and delivery, to have your body changed, to accept the danger of pregnancy and birthing, and to take on the responsibility of raising children. Not all women accept those things, and no government should be able to force them to.

Those doctors did nit know what I was thinking or planning to do when they first saw me.

Noticed that you didn't address the question of other women not accepting the choice you made to undergo a potentially life-threatening process.

No, because that's not what I was addressing. I'll say it again, no doctor, female or male, ever referred to my "fetus."

So? Why should we care?

Women who want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that will allow them to sustain them and give birth to a healthy baby.

Women who DO NOT want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that allow them to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

Women who want their pregnancies, but come to find that their pregnancies will result in a child that is not viable outside of the womb OR that the pregnancy may jeopardize their life should have access to the medical treatments that allow th to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

PERIOD.

So sick of "prolifers" putting the "rights" of a pregnancy above those of a fully formed, independent adult woman.

You should care because describing a growing baby as "just a fetus" is not accurate. Of course, that's not saying you can't maintain your pro abortion stance anyway

What kind of stupid twat thinks medically accurate terminology is “not accurate”?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there have been pain studies of preterm infants before 25 weeks who do seem to indicate pain responses. But again, we can't know and while I think it is wrong to dismiss the possibility because it makes you [general] look rigid and unwilling to accept new info, it is not a strong argument because of how the procedure is performed AND the use of analgesics to dull pain.

Christ save us from these people. Studies done on infants. Infants are different than fetuses. If you doubt this, if you truly think that birth changes no systems, maybe consider that a fetus isn’t breathing with its lungs in utero.

And again: 92% of abortions occur at less than 13 weeks. The ones that occur later occurred because forced birthers just couldn’t stop themselves from inventing every conceivable (no pun intended) barrier possible. 8 week fetuses, which are really 6 weeks old, do not have pain receptors.

Did you read anything I wrote in the above and collapsed posts or just jump to being ornery? In another post, I am alos quite clear that all the science in the world won't change someone's mind if they have any contradictory study to fall back on, so it is more efficient and persuasive to throw analgesics their way. That way, you can see if you are in fact dealing with a good faith argument (and there are some people who truly believe fetuses are in pain but lean towards pro-choice...I know I'd like to get through to those people)>

I did read the posts, thanks. It’s dear that you still have optimism for those people, but I have long since given up hope. They don’t understand why women have late abortions, they don’t seem to understand that all abortion is functionally illegal in multiple states at all gestational ages and for any reason. There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of critical thinking among the fence sitters. They seem confused and shocked about this decision and its implications and they remain ignorant on a whole host of other issues because they like it that way.

I agree in my heart, but nothing is going to ever change unless we keep dialogue open. Not acceptance, not agreement, but dialogue. We can't all keep retreating into our corners. We can be right and win the argument, but lose the war because we are not effective. Which is pretty much where we are now.

And we don't need to change people's minds about abortion. The majority is on that side. We need to keep dialogues open because voting matters more than ever and we need people to vote with us, not against us.

This is fair.

For the record, when my [redacting the relationship] had to TFMR, it was a massive surgery under general. Her fetus was feeling no pain whatsoever. The other later term abortions I have read about generally involve an ultrasound-guided shot (of potassium) to the heart and I believe they offered some sort of pain relief for the piece of mind of the parents. Still other later abortions are literally just birth with comfort care.

Doctors who provide abortions are not actually monsters. Women who terminate late would probably give ten years off their lives to not have to have an abortion. And now, with today’s decision, my [redacted] would bleed to death.