Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

So you find that idea revolting but forcing a woman to have a child isn't? Of course. Abortion is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with "the reality of things", you just don't like it. Well tough shït.

Contagiousness has nothing do with their point though, absolutely nothing. The point is about bodily autonomy, as very few people respected their right to theirs, yet many of the same people who showed no respect to said right at the time, are now using the same argument for themselves. The illogic isn't on their side, it's on yours.

Another point that we kept hearing during that period too, was "even if it saves one life, it's worth it". Oddly, that logic isn't applied to the unborn either.

I've seen a few people mention this "forcing women to have babies" and I just can't understand where it's coming from. Overturning Roe v Wade doesn't force anyone to have a baby, in fact it doesn't ban abortion at all.

What it does mean is that in States where they will look to ban it then those should be held accountable at the ballot box. It also means that the Senate should get up off it's lazy arses and start trying to legislate instead of leaving important issues to a panel of 9.

This really should be a watershed moment for both Federal and State elections. They need to legislate for what the people they supposedly represent want and if that doesn't happen they should be kicked out of office at the first opportunity. Pelosi and her ilk have been at the trough long enough now to have made some inroads on this particular issue but in all honesty they were just as happy to sit back and let the SC do it's thing because it suited them. They should have been working hard over the past 40 years to actually get this legislation through and take the SC out of the equation.

Who said it had to be for one night stands? A lot of couples don't want kids and so the guy would just not have everything put right until they did. Or potentially a guy has several partners, each for a period while finding the "one" and they have kids together. Honestly as far as suggestions go it is the most likely to cut down on the number of abortions that happen. As is no matter what laws are passed anyone who can will end up in more friendly areas or with back alley abortions. Obviously you will still have medical issues.

This is literally the definition of being responsible for the choices you make and being responsible with the power to create new life.

Are you against most forms of contraceptives that mess with various ways the female body works or is it just males that shouldn't be messed with? Like really, check out the side effects on most of those.

Nonsense, there was regulation and iniatives to reduce/avoid spreading infection.

If you wanted to get covid you were welcome to it, the right to spread it to others, that was not allowed.

That tired old argument is just nonsense.

Why are you trying to demean poor women?

"Forty-nine percent of abortion patients have an income below the poverty line, according to the Guttmacher Institute. And in Louisiana, where Haywood lives, the maternal mortality rate is one of the worst in the nation, especially among Black women. The state has since shuttered its abortion clinics, though a Louisiana judge temporarily blocked enforcement of the state's "trigger" abortion ban Monday.

"For the Black women I work with who already fear entering the health care system, this just exacerbates that even more," Haywood said. "The idea that somebody in the state that doesn't care what we say about Louisiana, in the state that doesn't care about people, that people will have to carry a child to term when they're already living in substandard housing, when their children are not getting the best education, when they can barely see their families."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/poor-women-color-bear-brunt-abortion-bans-roe/story%3fid=85782890

You really haven't a clue what you're talking about when it comes to poor women's access to healthcare. I'd love to see how smug you'd be if you were in their shoes.

I did write a post either yesterday or the day before where I noted that the Supreme Courts reasoning of transferring the responsibility of settling the abortion issue from case law to statutory law was somewhat compelling (the other reasonings less so) — so I do partially agree with you here. I’ve also noted though that the failure of officialdom to pass, while a failure it remains, should not be one that then invariably means that the individual rights of women have to suffer for it. If the failure of the legislature means that the issue of preventing women being forced to continue to unwanted pregnancies falls in the hands of the Court, then so be it. It’s imperfect, but it’s better than the alternative of simply not addressing it at all. I certainly agree with you that the decision should be the rallying call for the solidifying of abortion rights through legislation, but this will not be possible in all states.

I disagree with you in that I stand by the statement that “forcing women to have babies” is a live issue here. The overturning of Roe v Wade allows, and absolutely will precipitate, tighter abortion laws that will be specifically intended to prevent women as far as possible from receiving abortions - thus in other words seeking to force them to have the baby. The ability to travel elsewhere in the country for an abortion mitigates the risk somewhat, but does not change the intention of the laws and indeed favours those who have means.

As I've said upthread, that separation is about preventing an establishment of religion at the federal level.

Did the SC justices cite Almighty God and dedicate the US to the Sacred Heart? No, they made a legal-technical decision to devolve legislative authority to the states.

Do you have any life experience at all? Your posts are so naive and don't reflect what's happening in the real world.

Nope, I said your posts were naive. That often comes from a lack of life experience. There's a few lads posting here that wouldn't know one end of a woman from the other.