US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

This kind of reasoning is really rather silly and has an awful incel bang off it tbh.

When a foetus is in a woman's body it is totally dependent on her body. Pregnancy has significant, lifelong effects on a woman's body and significant health risks. It's not reasonable for anyone else to dictate that she must continue to carry a pregnancy she does not wish to or which puts her health or even life at greater risk than she is willing to accept.

Once a baby has been brought into the world, then both parties responsible for creating it have a responsibility for its welfare.

A constitution dictated to them by a Twitter troll who became President and 'elected' extremists to the Supreme Court.

Its the same with the moronic electoral college system. It only exists so that minority Republicans get far more power than they would ever get in an actual democracy.

Its hilarious to see anyone call any part of the American systems "democracy" they just dont understand the word.

That George Carlin routine isn't even true. Anti-abortion campaigners aren't really interested in mothers abusing their body while pregnant and potentially killing the foetus or giving it lifelong (possibly a short life) defects, so they can go f*ck themselves before they're born as well.

It’s a false dilemma to argue that the issue is whether or not anyone has the right to use the law as a blunt instrument to deny women autonomy over their own bodies. Nobody, man or woman, has full autonomy over their own bodies. With regards to reproduction and abortion specifically, it’s required to be regulated by law as the State has an interest in the issue.

I don’t think anyone who is anti-choice would have any more or less respect than they do or don’t have already. I wouldn’t consider it respect if someone only claimed to respect me because I agreed with their opinions. That’s not respect. It’s not even worth addressing claims which infer that anyone who is anti-choice doesn’t also advocate for help for struggling mums, better schools funding, help with accommodation and so on, when in reality, they actually do all those things already. Those things are unrelated to abortion.

You must surely be aware of the fact that religious organisations do provide all those sorts of supports to families and to women who have had abortions. The original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey, later became an Evangelical Protestant and anti-abortion activist, claiming to have been used as a pawn by abortion activists, which was true. What is also true is that she was used as a pawn by anti-abortion activists -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/28/norma-mccorvey-obituary-216184/

That happens when your idea of respect is predicated upon your agreement with another person’s opinions.

A man has no legal obligations towards a child that hasn’t been born yet. It’s his sperm, but it’s not his body. Depositing his sperm wherever he wishes does not give him ownership rights over anything or anyone else, regardless of how much a gift he imagines it is. Maintaining that a man should have zero contact with his children is not in the child’s best interests, and States in the US are beginning to regulate sperm donation because of some of the issues raised by anonymous sperm donation -

https://theconversation.com/amp/sperm-donation-is-largely-unregulated-but-that-could-soon-change-as-lawsuits-multiply-174389

In spite of the assertion that a child is a gift, by way of trying to justify forcing women to give birth against their wishes, pregnancy is not a gift if the woman in question did not choose to become pregnant in the first place. To be fair to you, you do concede that exceptions could be made in certain circumstances, but your exceptions are of little value when children are born and a rapist is entitled to access to their children -

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1432450001

The attempt to force a woman into having an abortion by way of threatening to withdraw support from the child is just a non-starter. It’s a rather vindictive argument that has nothing to do with abortion. In any case it’s why laws exist that hold both parents are responsible for their children’s welfare, because it’s in the best interests of the child.

If as some have read into the decision that 'stare decisis' no longer will be used in US Jurisprudence, well, welcome to no guns in blue states (since, yinno, no stare decisis, states can do what they want), Heller vs. DC nope, etc etc. It's a disaster of a decision in so many ways.