Justices signal they’ll OK new abortion limits, may toss Roe

[Patriotic Voter]

Roe should be tossed. Abortion policy should be a state level matter, not a federal one.

Why? As long as poor women need abortions, they need to get them in their own states.

 

[Lutherf]

Why would a 6-month gestation fetus need to be killed in order to save the mother?

Because the mother doesn't believe it's human. You can't "kill" that which isn't human and that's the way the "pro choice" crowd tends to look at things.

 

[highroller]

Roe should be tossed. Abortion policy should be a state level matter, not a federal one.

They should be a private matter, not a public one.

It’s none of your business what I do with my own body.

 

[Josie]

They should be a private matter, not a public one.

It’s none of your business what I do with my own body.

It is absolutely our business what you do to another human’s body without their consent.

 

[highroller]

It is absolutely our business what you do to another human’s body.

You are subjects to the power of the sovereigns then.

Silly slaves

 

[Josie]

You are subjects to the power of the sovereigns then.

Silly slaves

What?

 

[roguenuke]

Because the mother doesn't believe it's human. You can't "kill" that which isn't human and that's the way the "pro choice" crowd tends to look at things.

The woman should get to decide the risk she takes when it comes to supporting another life with her body at any point in the pregnancy. I can see limiting it if there is no change in her risk from viability or early pregnancy to past viability, but any change should be for her to assess with her doctor, her choice to make.

Just like anyone can refuse to donate a kidney or bone marrow, even if they are the only match available, regardless of how much or little such a donation would affect their life.

 

[roguenuke]

It is absolutely our business what you do to another human’s body without their consent.

Really? So you should get to decide that someone shouldn't be taken off of life support even if their family says that was their wish? Why? Because you say so?

That other human is negatively affecting another human's body, putting them at risk, so it should be that "another human" who makes the decision on how much risk they take there. Not yours.

 

[Josie]

The woman should get to decide the risk she takes when it comes to supporting another life with her body at any point in the pregnancy. I can see limiting it if there is no change in her risk from viability or early pregnancy to past viability, but any change should be for her to assess with her doctor, her choice to make.

Just like anyone can refuse to donate a kidney or bone marrow, even if they are the only match available, regardless of how much or little such a donation would affect their life.

Your kidney and your bone marrow belong to you. You absolutely should be able to do whatever you want with your own body. A fetus is not your body.

 

[roguenuke]

Your kidney and your bone marrow belong to you. You absolutely should be able to do whatever you want with your own body. A fetus is not your body.

The resources the fetus is using in your body to build its body belong to you. The space inside your body belongs to you. That space is yours to do with on your own. So if you remove the fetus it will die outside the body either way at almost every point when it is legal to have an abortion, where almost every abortion occurs. The woman gestating should be able to remove that other body from her own, decide not to provide her resources to it.

 

[Josie]

Really? So you should get to decide that someone shouldn't be taken off of life support even if their family says that was their wish? Why? Because you say so?

If it was their wish, then it should be done. ??

That other human is negatively affecting another human's body, putting them at risk, so it should be that "another human" who makes the decision on how much risk they take there. Not yours.

And killing a child who can survive outside of the womb is a decision that she shouldn’t be allowed to make. The baby isn’t her property. There is no reason why a 6-month or later gestation baby has to die to save the life of the mother. You try to save them both.

 

[Josie]

The resources the fetus is using in your body to build its body belong to you. The space inside your body belongs to you. That space is yours to do with on your own. So if you remove the fetus it will die outside the body either way at almost every point when it is legal to have an abortion, where almost every abortion occurs. The woman gestating should be able to remove that other body from her own, decide not to provide her resources to it.

We are talking about fetuses who would survive outside of the womb.

 

[roguenuke]

We are talking about fetuses who would survive outside of the womb.

No, we aren't, even in most cases where the woman is past 24 weeks. Most of those the fetus would not likely survive outside the womb without putting the woman at an even higher risk. If they thought the fetus would, then it wouldn't be an abortion but rather an actual emergency C section as you suggested earlier. That is an option when the woman is willing to take that risk and the doctors feel there is a decent chance of survival for the born baby and not just blind hope just because.

 

[Cope]

Father's should have the choice to opt out of child support, and give up their rights to the child to make 'my body. my choice' a real equal decision.

 

[Josie]

No, we aren't, even in most cases where the woman is past 24 weeks. Most of those the fetus would not likely survive outside the womb without putting the woman at an even higher risk. If they thought the fetus would, then it wouldn't be an abortion but rather an actual emergency C section as you suggested earlier. That is an option when the woman is willing to take that risk and the doctors feel there is a decent chance of survival for the born baby and not just blind hope just because.

Yes, we are talking about that. You said it should be legal even in late stages of pregnancy. That’s what spurred my comment to you.

Trying to save both lives should always be the first choice.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, we are talking about that. You said it should be legal even in late stages of pregnancy. That’s what spurred my comment to you.

Trying to save both lives should always be the first choice.

Trying to save both lives, when there is not a fatal diagnosis for the fetus, something that will cause death already near or at birth is the first choice for almost all doctors/patients (the woman went through that much time pregnant, it would be illogical to believe that she didn't weigh that option). But it still should be her choice if attempting the save the baby puts her at much greater risk of death or major complications, particularly when we don't have any set info (given that we are talking generals here) on how likely the baby is to live.

Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF

This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.

www.kff.org

There are several reasons to have an abortion later in pregnancy. There is a reason that I say it should be between the woman and her doctor, which means the doctor gets to decide whether he/she will perform it based on the reasons the woman gives. It is her body.

 

[Clicker III]

Constitutional rights are not a state matter.

I agree however the state's far reaching encroachments to 2A are proof that the states rights are determined by the ideology of the party in power and emotions of the beholder.

 

[jpevans]

The question that needs resolving is how much can the government restrict a right before it’s considered a violation. There are multiple issues that will be resolved once that’s answered

Another question is why a woman's rights hang on a 50 yr. old court decision? Why has there not been a a federal law passed in 50 years guaranteeing a woman's right to autonomy over her own body?
Imagine if civil rights hung on a decision of the SCOTUS?
This court, while talkin' shit how they ain't political, is the most political in history. The Drumpf picks were completely based on being against Abortion, although they uttered some pabulum, sidestepping Roe v Wade in their confirmation hearings.
I also don't like the idea of socalled packing the court, 9 is plenty, there prob'ly should be an easier way to get rid of a Justice who indulges in political plotting, like former Justice Scalia, & perhaps Justice Thomas with his wife's connections to extreme right wind groups.

 

[roguenuke]

Another question is why a woman's rights hang on a 50 yr. old court decision? Why has there not been a a federal law passed in 50 years guaranteeing a woman's right to autonomy over her own body?
Imagine if civil rights hung on a decision of the SCOTUS?
This court, while talkin' shit how they ain't political, is the most political in history. The Drumpf picks were completely based on being against Abortion, although they uttered some pabulum, sidestepping Roe v Wade in their confirmation hearings.
I also don't like the idea of socalled packing the court, 9 is plenty, there prob'ly should be an easier way to get rid of a Justice who indulges in political plotting, like former Justice Scalia, & perhaps Justice Thomas with his wife's connections to extreme right wind groups.

Because it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment to actually be able to not be in danger from the SCOTUS anyway. Many civil rights do in fact hang on decisions of the SCOTUS, including right to interracial marriage and same sex marriage, right to contraceptives, and even many nuances of those rights within the Civil Rights Act itself.

I do agree with the rest of this about the Courts though. And I do believe that there should also be a minimum requirement experience when it comes to all those who are put on any of our courts.

 

[MTAtech]

Roe should be tossed. Abortion policy should be a state level matter, not a federal one.

Then marriage between members of different races and gay marriage should be at the state level too. Yet, the SCOTUS ruled unanimously in 1967 that state laws banning marriage between individuals of different races, holding that these anti-miscegenation statutes violated both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of these are constitutionally protected personal freedoms and no government level should be able to ban.

Isn't it interesting that conservatives are champions of individual rights except for abortion and contraceptives?

 

[jpevans]

Under what Constitutional precedent does the court have a right to create a new federal power? That's what Roe did.

Roe v Wade didn't create any federal power, it eliminated the power of the government to control individual woman's rights to control their own bodies. One of my favorite bumper stickers was, Don't like Abortion, "Don't have one".
One of my Doctors is across from an Abortion Clinic, why are the majority of protesters persons with dicks?

 

[MTAtech]

Under what Constitutional precedent does the court have a right to create a new federal power? That's what Roe did.

Roe v Wade took away the government's power and granted it back to the rightful owner, the individual.

 

[jpevans]

That's exactly right. Abortions were performed before Roe and will continue to be performed is Roe is overturned entirely or in part. It will be comparable to bans on various drugs and "assault weapons".

When I was a kid (pre Roe) I read an editorial from a Doctor in one of our local hospitals, his message was that every week there were one, two or more deaths from back ally abortions, never registered as such.
Are we so eager to return to the days of yesteryear? I have grand daughters.

 

[screenwriter]

Because the mother doesn't believe it's human. You can't "kill" that which isn't human and that's the way the "pro choice" crowd tends to look at things.

What makes it "human" or not is whether or not it is "wanted". What a world in which we live that if you aren't "wanted" you aren't "human".

 

[Hatuey]

Lol, it is not our business what you do with your body, but it is absolutely our business what you do with another humans body!

But also .. fetus dying? Let's cut you open and save it!

Conservative feminism is a terrifying Christian autocracy where body autonomy is entirely dependent on religious beliefs.

Where is the SE Cupp avatar?