"Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows"

[clearspira]

I'm too tired to argue with you.

Interracial marriage or my thoughts that abortion is more about personal beliefs than men wanting to control bodies?

He wants you to admit that America is the patriarchal, white supremacist dystopia he thinks it is.

[Mabus]

https://abc7news.com/roe-wade-overturne ... /11992850/

A focus of the concern is how some states with anti-abortion trigger laws, like Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky, already define embryos as unborn children at the moment of fertilization -- a stance that may provide a starting point for legislators to interfere with the IVF process.

In Louisiana, legislators are already moving in a bold direction. Lawmakers advanced a bill that would criminalize abortion in the state and grant constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilization." Notably, that bill would remove language in current Louisiana law that refers to the "implantation" of the fertilized egg before it is considered a person.

"A bill like the one that's proposed in Louisiana would prohibit IVF in that state, and that's something we're extremely worried about," Dr. Natalie Crawford of FORA Fertility in Austin, Texas, told CNN. "We don't think people understand the repercussions from some of these proposed bills."

Bravo GOP, you have sent US back to the 19th century.
You have trouble getting pregnant? Fuck you, you don't deserve medical help for that.

[pilight]

I'm too tired to argue with you.

Interracial marriage or my thoughts that abortion is more about personal beliefs than men wanting to control bodies?

If it was about personal beliefs they wouldn't be so insistent about imposing it on everyone

[CmdrKing]

Birth control bans. Same-sex marriage bans. Erosion of various personal freedoms and human rights under the law.

I expect that they'll overturn brown v. Board.

That I doubt. My interracial marriage thing was a joke. I highly doubt the Supreme Court will go that far.

The thing is abortion was never a just a 'men wanting more control over women's bodies'. That is such a basic argument. A second look around will find many women who are pro-Life. The real thing about abortion was about personal belief systems.

The personal belief that men and women of status should control the lives and bodies of lesser women, yes.

The fact that conservative women may enforce these laws but never be bound by them is an argument in favor of patriarchal intent being behind this, not one against it.

Because you and I both know, that for the vast majority of these “pro-life” women? If they felt they needed an abortion they would get one, guilt free and with zero cognitive dissonance. They, afterall, are “good people” who obviously “deserved” an exception. The important thing is preventing “unnecessary” abortions from women “taking advantage” of them.

[Draco Dracul]

Birth control bans. Same-sex marriage bans. Erosion of various personal freedoms and human rights under the law.

I expect that they'll overturn brown v. Board.

That I doubt. My interracial marriage thing was a joke. I highly doubt the Supreme Court will go that far.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

My fucking senator is calling for Brown v. Board, you know because anti-abortion was slapped together as a key talking point when de jure segregation had become too unpopular:
https://mobile.twitter.com/NewsWire_US/ ... ttcTg&s=19

[clearspira]

Its kinda funny how none of this happened under Trump's watch. Senile old Biden is overseeing the end of abortion and possibly the end of civil rights if the post above is accurate. And America's second Vietnam in Afghanistan. And war in Europe. And potentially the worst recession since 2008. This guy is going to be electoral poison if he runs in 2024.

Yeah, BTW, I know, most of this is not down to him personally. But that isn't how history ever remembers it.

[Madner Kami]

Ultimately, this is down to two dysfunctional aspects of the US governmental system: The two party system and the filibuster. Both give the opposition too much power, allowing it to effectively halt govermnent for a legislative period. Incidentally, this is also why this isn't adressed yet, because neither party has an interest to change this.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Ultimately, this is down to two dysfunctional aspects of the US governmental system: The two party system and the filibuster. Both give the opposition too much power, allowing it to effectively halt govermnent for a legislative period. Incidentally, this is also why this isn't adressed yet, because neither party has an interest to change this.

Cato attempted to use the filibuster at least twice to frustrate the political objectives of Julius Caesar.[4] The first incident occurred during the summer of 60 BC, when Caesar was returning home from his propraetorship in Hispania Ulterior. Caesar, by virtue of his military victories over the raiders and bandits in Hispania, had been awarded a triumph by the Senate. Having recently turned forty, Caesar had also become eligible to stand for consul. This posed a dilemma. Roman generals honored with a triumph were not allowed to enter the city prior to the ceremony, but candidates for the consulship were required, by law, to appear in person at the Forum.[4] The date of the election, which had already been set, made it impossible for Caesar to stand unless he crossed the pomerium and gave up the right to his triumph. Caesar petitioned the Senate to stand in absentia, but Cato employed a filibuster to block the proposal. Faced with a choice between a triumph and the consulship, Caesar chose the consulship and entered the city.

[hammerofglass]

Ultimately, this is down to two dysfunctional aspects of the US governmental system: The two party system and the filibuster. Both give the opposition too much power, allowing it to effectively halt govermnent for a legislative period. Incidentally, this is also why this isn't adressed yet, because neither party has an interest to change this.

The filibuster is going to go away five minutes into the first Republican-majority senate session. I don't think even the Democratic senators who blocked their own party doing it will be surprised.

[phantom000]

In an era of 99% effective contraception I do not think that there is an excuse for most abortions. Just my opinion.

I think there are some situations where it would be acceptable (a 'lesser of two evils' kinda thing), but there is one very specific circumstance where any justification for it collapses. Of course I'm not a legal expert so I don't know how one would ban abortion in that one situation but allow it in the others, or even if that is possible and if its not then you're back to 'which is the lesser evil?'

But I agree that there is nothing wrong with contraception. Ethically speaking, taking a birth control pill is the same as being celibate so what's the problem?