The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Warp12 said:
You haven't given a reason for why it should be legal, to start with.

You are saying, ultimately, "If someone aborts a healthy full-term fetus, for any reason, right before the moment of birth, it should be an entirely legal action".

Do you condemn or support the law allowing for this?
Click to expand...

the point is whether something needs to be legislated.
I thought I had detected some Libertarian streak in you, which should mean that you would prefer there not to be a law if none is needed.
I prefer the Legislators to tackle the most common, most important problems first, instead of hiding behind trying to solve problems that don't exist.

Now you are saying that, just on the off-chance someone does something bad, we better have a law against that.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
The term "elective" when used with surgery doesn't mean "optional", it means "can be scheduled at a particular time and date". The news media, politicians, and people on messageboards sometimes don't grasp that when quoting medical publications. "Elective surgery" is an industry term with a particular meaning in healthcare.
Click to expand...

What is the better term for how I was using it? I guess "optional" would work.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The term "elective" when used with surgery doesn't mean "optional", it means "can be scheduled at a particular time and date". The news media, politicians, and people on messageboards sometimes don't grasp that when quoting medical publications. "Elective surgery" is an industry term with a particular meaning in healthcare.
Click to expand...

Elective obviously includes optional, though.

Tell us how many abortions in the US are not optional, for any given year.
 
Warp12 said:
Believe me, someone will do anything for a price. It might not make the news, believe it or not. And some people are simply demented. And, when they do it, you can't prosecute. Tell me why it should be legal.
Click to expand...

Tell me why we should expend legislative time on something that we don't (so far here) have even one example of?

I would think someone who leans conservative/libertarian would be against "feel good" laws that have zero positive effect and a history of negative.
 
theprestige said:
Elective obviously includes optional, though.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it didn't. I was pointing out a common failing in media buzz around medical topics, the misuse of a specific industry term that outsiders don't even realize is a specific industry term that has a meaning not apparently obvious. And which confusion of meanings has lead to misunderstanding, particularly in the topic of abortion, because medical personnel will refer to it as "elective" without meaning what the lay audience assumes it means, as "optional".


Tell us how many abortions in the US are not optional, for any given year.
Click to expand...

I don't give a ****, I'm not really interested in the numbers. I think abortion should be the choice of the individual most heavily concerned in the matter.
 
Warp12 said:
You haven't given a reason for why it should be legal, to start with.

You are saying, ultimately, "If someone aborts a healthy full-term fetus, for any reason, right before the moment of birth, it should be an entirely legal action".

Do you condemn or support the law allowing for this?
Click to expand...
The government must have a "compelling interest" to regulate an activity.

Similar to the burden of proof. The one putting forth the claim must supply the evidence.

This is precisely what broke Prop 8, even though it was brought forth by public referendum. That pesky "tyranny of the majority" issue doesn't fly here.

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk
 
It's all the rage these days, I'm telling you!

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2022-04-12/oklahoma-governor-signs-abortion-ban

Oklahoma’s governor signed a bill into law Tuesday that makes performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony, becoming the latest state to move to restrict access to the procedure ahead of a Supreme Court decision expected this summer that could alter its trajectory.


“I promised Oklahomans that I would sign every pro-life bill that hit my desk,” Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt said, “And that’s what we’re doing here today.”


Slated to take effect this summer, 90 days after the legislative session ends, the law would punish health care providers who perform an abortion with up to 10 years in prison and up to $100,000 in fines. It makes an exception only in the case of a threat to the life of the mother.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
The government must have a "compelling interest" to regulate an activity.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Pretty much any interest will generally do.

A compelling interest is only required for regulations that restrict constitutional rights. Given what else has passed as a compelling interest, I don't think it's hard to come up with one for abortion (such as the interest in how many citizens there are in the country).

Now, having a compelling interest does not actually compel any particular legislative approach. Furthermore, I don't think this is really what it's going to come down to. I think that, at the end of the day, it's going to hinge on other questions, in particular what one thinks of the act of abortion itself. But except as an excuse by people who want to keep it legal, I don't think the "compelling interest" argument is actually going to matter here.
 
I think the Republicans are pressing to get something before the SCOTUS before Thomas keels over.

That, and they're a bunch of sociopathic halfwits.
 
The Atheist said:
Gotta hand it to Republicans for having a sense of humour on abortion:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/preg...dt-abortion-rights_n_626ad352e4b01131b1207beb
Click to expand...

“It is a shame that it happens, but there’s an opportunity for that woman – no matter how young or old she is ― to make a determination about what she’s going to do to help that life be a productive human being. … That child can grow up and be something magnificent, a wonderful family person, cure cancer, etc.,” she continued.
Click to expand...

Well, she isn't wrong. But women shouldn't be forced to carry rape babies to term. Some probably do choose to keep the baby, depending on the circumstances. I wonder how prevalent that choice is?
 
Warp12 said:
Well, she isn't wrong. But women shouldn't be forced to carry rape babies to term.
Click to expand...
If she isn't wrong then why don't you agree with her? If I though the facts supported that the embryo or fetus was a child I'd agree that abortion was murder. Since you agree with her on that point, then what is the source of your disagreement with her?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
If she isn't wrong then why don't you agree with her? If I though the facts supported that the embryo or fetus was a child I'd agree that abortion was murder. Since you agree with her on that point, then what is the source of your disagreement with her?
Click to expand...

I agree with the quote I provided. But I don't agree that women should be forced to carry rape babies to term, as I clearly stated.

Are we really digging for something to debate? Sorry if my beliefs don't neatly fit the conservative stereotypes.
 
Last edited:
I'm asking you why if you agree with her on one thing then don't agree her conclusion. What step in your reasoning loads to your difference of opinion with her?
Warp12 said:
I agree with the quote I provided.
Click to expand...
Which says the embryo/fetus is a child. You then use the word "babies".
Warp12 said:
But I don't agree that women should be forced to carry rape babies to term, as I clearly stated.
Click to expand...
So for some reason you haven't told me, despite me asking, you support killing children and babies when their father is a rapist. Why? Is that really where you want to leave this?

Warp12 said:
Are we really digging for something to debate? Sorry if my beliefs don't neatly fit the conservative stereotypes.
Click to expand...
Your beliefs do fit conservative stereotypes and my question has nothing to do with conservative stereotypes. And I don't know if it would even lead to a debate. Why would I expect it to? You realize we actually agree on this point, right? I am asking you why we agree because it seems odd given that you agree with her fetus and children. If I agreed with her about that I would change my mind about abortion.
 
Warp12 said:
Well, she isn't wrong. But women shouldn't be forced to carry rape babies to term. Some probably do choose to keep the baby, depending on the circumstances. I wonder how prevalent that choice is?
Click to expand...
But if you agree that women shouldn't be forced to carry rape babies to term you are explicitly stating that she is wrong in the policy she advocates, even if you agree that she can be right about the feelings of some rape victims. You, allowing for a possibility, support a law that mandates an absolute impossibility. And in so contradicting yourself, you admit that you don't even know how prevalent the choice being denied might be.

Your beliefs may not fit what you consider conservative stereotypes, but when policy is at issue, your beliefs seem to be set aside and the conservative stereotypes win the day.

Of course we all make compromises and vote sometimes holding our noses, but I think there is a real, significant and important difference in supporting something that is incomplete or insufficient, which many of us do often, and in supporting something that is flawed in the opposite way, not granting fewer rights or benefits than we'd like, but removing more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom