Jump to content

What happens if Roe v. Wade is reversed?

Zombie

By Zombie
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

How are you drawing this conclusion from what was said? 

He said that abortion is murder and should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest etc.. Which is akin to saying, you should not be allowed to murder an innocent child, unless it's father is a rapist, then it's OK to murder the criminal's innocent child. 

For what it's worth, I am as pro-choice as they come, I'm just trying to expand the thought experiment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32709

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

He said that abortion is murder and should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest etc.. Which is akin to saying, you should not be allowed to murder an innocent child, unless it's father is a rapist, then it's OK to murder the criminal's innocent child. 

For what it's worth, I am as pro-choice as they come, I'm just trying to expand the thought experiment. 

This is, of course, exactly correct. And just like he did a few pages ago, he will pretend to miss the point so he doesn't have to confront the reality of his position despite how obvious it is.

If you believe that a fetus is a young child with rights, but that abortion is okay in the case of rape, then you believe:

Young child - not okay to kill

Young child whose father is a rapist - okay to kill

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomIdoit

RandomIdoit 655

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

He said that abortion is murder and should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest etc.. Which is akin to saying, you should not be allowed to murder an innocent child, unless it's father is a rapist, then it's OK to murder the criminal's innocent child. 

For what it's worth, I am as pro-choice as they come, I'm just trying to expand the thought experiment. 

I think a lot of people who are pro-life (not all though) would change their view if their wife or daughter was impregnated as the result of incest or rape.  To me, those are the exceptions along with the mother's life at risk and some medical condition that would lead to the child living an awful life or suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomIdoit

RandomIdoit 655

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is, of course, exactly correct. And just like he did a few pages ago, he will pretend to miss the point so he doesn't have to confront the reality of his position despite how obvious it is.

If you believe that a fetus is a young child with rights, but that abortion is okay in the case of rape, then you believe:

Young child - not okay to kill

Young child whose father is a rapist - okay to kill

Just because YOU don't think there are exceptions, doesn't mean there aren't for others. Do you think I am the only person who has this view? 

Edited by RandomIdoit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22600

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Just because YOU don't think there are exceptions, doesn't mean there aren't for others. Do you think I am the only person who has this view? 

Nobody is saying that you are alone in this view.  They are just pointing out the absurdity in the logic behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I think a lot of people who are pro-life (not all though) would change their view if their wife or daughter was impregnated as the result of incest or rape.  To me, those are the exceptions along with the mother's life at risk and some medical condition that would lead to the child living an awful life or suffering.

Sure, they would not want to be inconvenienced (physically, emotionally, financially, etc.) by having that child, so they would abort it, even thought they might think it's wrong in general. Different women will have different feelings on where that inconvenience line is, for some rape, for others it might be a 17 year old rich white girl losing her virginity to a crack head at a rave whose baby will cost her a spot in the Theta house at SMU. For others it might be her and her boyfriend are flat our broke and know they can't support a child. For others it might be that the doctor told them the fetus is damaged and the child will be born with no eyes and one foot. There are a thousand different reasons why the discovery of a zygote will result in a women (or couple) deciding that the physical, emotional and financial burden of having a child is unbearable and rather than create a dependent with nobody to depend on, they'd rather deal with the emotional stress of removing a cluster of cells from their body. It's a choice that should left to the mother, not the government. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26437

Posted
Posted

I think both sides of the argument rest on opinion over true logic. 

If it's a "choice" would it be acceptable in the last trimester if the parents didn't want a girl?

If it's a baby at conception, it shouldn't matter if it's rape, incest, whatever. It either has rights or it doesn't. You can't have exceptions.

(FWIW, I'm pro-choice, but for pragmatic reasons)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32709

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Absurd to you. Perfectly logical to a lot of the people I ask.

So why don't you just admit it? You believe that it is okay to kill a young child for a crime that the father committed.

As I've said before, this is a morally reprehensible position to hold. And you continue to be hung up on your theory that I don't believe that it's your position or that other people have the same opinion. Again, that's not the case. I believe that you have this horrific opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomIdoit

RandomIdoit 655

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So why don't you just admit it? You believe that it is okay to kill a young child for a crime that the father committed.

As I've said before, this is a morally reprehensible position to hold. And you continue to be hung up on your theory that I don't believe that it's your position or that other people have the same opinion. Again, that's not the case. I believe that you have this horrific opinion.

How many times do I have to say that I think it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she was raped? I have said that over and over in this thread. You may hate it, but I do not think that it is wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9759

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RandomIdoit said:

How many times do I have to say that I think it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she was raped? I have said that over and over in this thread. You may hate it, but I do not think that it is wrong. 

are you always this slow on the uptake?  username absolutely checks out.

we all understand you think it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she was raped.

we just think it is funny that you think there is some supportive "logic" behind the notion that it is awful to kill a baby unless its father was a rapist.  it is okay to murder that baby just to pay for the sins of its father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomIdoit

RandomIdoit 655

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sidis said:

are you always this slow on the uptake?  username absolutely checks out.

we all understand you think it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion if she was raped.

we just think it is funny that you think there is some supportive "logic" behind the notion that it is awful to kill a baby unless its father was a rapist.  it is okay to murder that baby just to pay for the sins of its father.

Are you this slow on the uptake? Huckleberry asked:

Quote

So why don't you just admit it? You believe that it is okay to kill a young child for a crime that the father committed.

He is implying that I am denying or ever denied this. I have not at all. I have always maintained that it was okay to abort the baby who is the product of rape. It's okay not to as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Are you this slow on the uptake? Huckleberry asked:

He is implying that I am denying or ever denied this. I have not at all. I have always maintained that it was okay to abort the baby who is the product of rape. It's okay not to as well.

You must be a fan of those multi-generation North Korean work camps as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

This is, of course, exactly correct. And just like he did a few pages ago, he will pretend to miss the point so he doesn't have to confront the reality of his position despite how obvious it is.

If you believe that a fetus is a young child with rights, but that abortion is okay in the case of rape, then you believe:

Young child - not okay to kill

Young child whose father is a rapist - okay to kill

You gave a solution that you claimed to have always supported, yet when I ask for your ethical reasoning as to why you support that approach you fail to give any.   I'm sure you have thought about the ethical implications of your proposed solution to at least some degree & have some rational basis that you feel supports it (as you don't strike me as the type who arrives as conclusions arbitrarily) and you are also willing to discuss the moral aspect of this subject at length on this thread.  So why not share your reasoning?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted

Don't care to scroll through pages of people arguing about abortion, but here's a good analysis on why it's a moot point.  Won't stop the scare tactics, but still.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-abortion-scare-campaign-1530573972?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/Xao1AF51wF

Spoiler

Some things in politics are predictable—a New Jersey tax increase, a “no” vote by Senator Rand Paul, and an abortion-rights scare campaign every time a Republican President makes a Supreme Court nomination. And sure enough, the predictions of doom for abortion and gay rights began within minutes of Anthony Kennedy’s resignation last week. These predictions are almost certainly wrong.

***

“Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months,” tweeted Jeffrey Toobin, the legal pundit, in a classic of cool, even-handed CNN analysis soon after the resignation news. Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer was almost as definitive. “Whomever the president picks, it is all too likely they’re going to overturn health-care protections and Roe v. Wade,” the 1973 abortion-rights decision, Mr. Schumer declared. “We don’t need to guess."

The first thing to keep in mind is that this is what Democrats and their media allies always say. They said it in 1987 when Justice Kennedy was nominated. They said it in 1990 about David Souter, again about Clarence Thomas in 1991, John Roberts and Samuel Alito in 2005, and Neil Gorsuch in 2017. They even claimed the Chief Justice might overturn Roe because his wife is a Roman Catholic. Mrs. Roberts is still waiting to write her first opinion.

The liberal line is always that Roe hangs by a judicial thread, and one more conservative Justice will doom it. Yet Roe still stands after nearly five decades. Our guess is that this will be true even if President Trump nominates another Justice Gorsuch. The reason is the power of stare decisis, or precedent, and how conservatives view the role of the Court in supporting the credibility of the law.

Start with the Court’s Obergefell ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. The ruling was only 5-4 and Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion with a formidable dissent by Chief Justice Roberts. 

Yet there’s almost no chance the Chief would reverse Obergefell now. Tens of thousands of gay couples have been married across the U.S. since the ruling. They have changed their lives based on it. Is the Court now going to tell those couples that states can declare their marriages void? Or that their property rights under marriage laws are no longer valid?

A key part of the Court’s stare decisis calculation is “reliance interests,” or how and how many people have come to rely on a precedent. Chief Justice Roberts cited reliance interests in his Wayfair dissent on state internet sales taxes this term, and its logic is even more compelling for same-sex marriage. 

A different stare decisis logic applies to Roe, which was one of the Court’s worst rulings but is now 45 years old and embedded in American law. While abortion is still hotly debated, the Court has reinforced the right many times. 

Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 superseded Roe with its “undue burden” test on states for imposing limits on abortion. In 2016 in Hellerstedt, the Court invoked that test to strike down a Texas law imposing stringent regulations on abortion clinics. In many other cases when the Court has upheld state restrictions, the core right was never challenged.

Our view, supported by more than a little reporting, is that even though they think Roe was wrongly decided, most of the current conservative Justices would shy from overturning it and handing abortion law entirely to the states. The exception is Justice Clarence Thomas, who has made his intentions clear. 

Scientific advances have made abortions easy to obtain through medication in the early weeks of pregnancy, and making them illegal would create an enormous social uproar and invite an attack on the Court that Chief Justice Roberts in particular would not want. Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals told us recently that his long-time friend and colleague Antonin Scalia told him before he died that even he would not have sought to overturn Roe today. 

 

Ah, but didn’t five Justices only last week vote to overturn a 41-year-old First Amendment precedent on coerced speech on union fees? They did, but Abood had long ago become an outlier in the Court’s free-speech jurisprudence. It survived by a single vote even as the Court struck down other examples of speech coerced by governments.

The same cannot be said about the Court’s abortion precedents. A post-Kennedy Court is likely not to overturn Roe and its successors but it will probably uphold more state restrictions. This won’t please some social conservatives, but it would put U.S. law close to where American public opinion is—keeping abortion legal but making it rarer than it now is.

***

Many on the left and right will disagree with this analysis for different reasons. Conservatives want to believe that Roe can still be repealed in toto, like Plessy v. Ferguson , and we admire their conviction. Liberals want to scare Americans to believe abortion rights are in peril so they can intimidate enough GOP Senators to defeat whoever Mr. Trump nominates to replace Justice Kennedy.

The headlines are already targeting GOP Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito, and abortion is the political cudgel. Ms. Collins said over the weekend that she won’t vote to confirm a nominee who shows “hostility” to Roe. She isn’t likely to face such a choice. 

No one on Mr. Trump’s list of nominees will claim to want to overturn Roe—and not because they are lying. In their caution and deference to precedent, they will be showing proper conservative respect for the law and the reputation of the Court.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13137

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

"God bless abortions."  Sickening.

Democrats and the left need to put a muzzle on this waste of carbon ASAP.  And that voice...why would anyone choose to hear her speak?

Because if they do put a muzzle on those who support abortion rights, I'm sure you will become very supportive of their side. lol fuck off

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22600

Posted
Posted

It’s weird to say this, but I actually think the Democrats have pretty solid strategy right now. The message has become, “5th Justice = imminent repeal of Roe v. Wade,” and I actually think it has stuck with the general public, regardless of how realistic it may or may not be.

It’s a pretty easy and effective message that (per recent polls) puts the Democrats on the same side as 2/3 of Americans, and “Look what happens when you put Republicans in charge” should be easy to carry into midterms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16866

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

"God bless abortions."  Sickening.

Democrats and the left need to put a muzzle on this waste of carbon ASAP.  And that voice...why would anyone choose to hear her speak?

 

 

Muzzling/silencing women seems like a solution to you?   Fuck your feelings snowflake.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...