The future of abortion in the US

Roe v Wade was bad because

1) It inferred a right exists to have an abortion. That was inferred from the "right to privacy" which doesn't even appear in the Constitution. The "right to privacy" is itself inferred.

2) It took the debate about abortion away from the states and away from state level debate.

What is the big deal anyway about Roe V. Wade being overturned.

If Roe V. Wade was overturned tomorrow abortion rights would be

1) Greatly restricted in about one third of the states.
2) Remain the same as now in about one third of the states (some states have even passed legislation for that eventuality).
3) Be to varying degrees between those two extremes in about one third of the states.

Worst case for abortion rights advocates, abortions will remain completely legal in 16-18 states probably. Including the most populous like California, New York.

To start, I'm not even a little bit religious.

Nor am I against contraception or women being in control of their own sexuality or having reproductive freedom (in general).

Philosophically, I value human life very highly. (Note: that does not mean I value it over any and all considerations; I accept that it is necessary to kill in certain situations.) But human life is, to me, not something that should be destroyed lightly or simply as a matter of convenience. Accepting that it were okay to do so, would, in my view, diminish the value of a human being.

Now, the question comes up: is a zygote or an early stage fetus a human life? Certainly, it is a living organism and it is genetically a human being. Is it deserving of recognition as a human being? I'm not sure, which is why, though I'm against abortion, I'm not stridently so. I could, for instance, vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights.

I don't think there's a next world where judgment awaits; I can only look at this one and decide what I think best. If a fetus really isn't a person and I support outlawing abortion, I could deprive many women of a freedom many of them value; if a fetus is a person and I don't support outlawing abortion, then I could deprive many people of their lives. What settles it for me is this: for the vast majority of abortions, there were alternatives available; for the unborn, there is none.

My problem with Roe v Wade was not the inferred right to privacy; I think this is implicit in the 4th Amendment, anyway.

It's that privacy could be extended to include abortion, and that little regard was given to the fetus involved.

Yes, common sense regulation like raping a woman with a vaginal ultrasound wand for having the nerve to make a rational choice about an 18+year commitment, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars of money she may not be able to make. How about needing admitting privileges for an outpatient procedure that does not require hospitalization? Or maybe not allowing abortions because the doorway or halfway in your facility is not the proper width? Or how about forcing a woman to undergo hours of waiting and watching videos which serve only the purpose of emotional abuse or delaying u til the time is up on abortion?

These are just a few of the bullshit regulations the non medical professionals of Congress and the state's have proposed to back door roe v wade and punish women for having sex with a child. It is another part of the intellectual dishonesty of the right to claim they care about children or the medical safety of the mother's, who they call sluts and whores. I am done with that pretense also. If you cannot vote for the covering of all food, medicine, shelter, and education for every child present in the US then you have no business claiming the children are your reasons for punishing sexually active women.

Abortion and Affirmative Action will be history in 1 year.

I'm ambivalent on whether or not women should be forced to dedicate their body for 9 months to growing a fetus says a man who thinks being taxed to help look after fully grown humans is an outrage.

What does god need with a Dayton?

If that's directed at me, I suppose I should've known better than to engage in anything like a thoughtful discussion here. I've said all I'm going to in this thread.

Wasn’t there a book of the Bible that got left out that told the story of Jesus going to hell first and basically says everyone in hell will eventually be let into heaven at the end of day?

I think its still mentioned in one of the gospels that Jesus went and "ministered" to those in hades. I think the inference was that Jesus was going to offer those who died prior to his coming in an unsaved condition (through disobedience to God) a chance at salvation.

Cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy tends to make me leave threads as well.

The 4th amendment clearly recognizes a right to privacy. Even if it didn't though, the 9th says that rights don't have to to be explicitly stated in the Constitution in order to be protected.

I voted for the second one. I think the courts might erode some abortion rights, but not overturn Roe v Wade.

I forgot to turn on the poll feature so we can see who voted what. Can mods please fix that?

Nope, not an option under the edit tool. (Plus even if it was it would be bad to make it public if it was initially private)

You also forgot Teh Babah option, poll invalid.

I'd really like to know who voted the 5th option, because I suspect it's wishful thinking.

Fuck God.

No.

I voted #2, "Roe will not be overturned, but the court will chip away at abortion rights gradually." For what it's worth, chipping away at Roe has been happening for decades and will continue happening for a while. It's too well established to overturn Roe, but the court has always found creative ways around it.

In my opinion, you will not see an actual overturning of Roe v. Wade until the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. drops to a fraction of what they are today and stays at that level for a prolonged period.

It's a lot easier to rule against a right that impacts 50,000 women a year in the U.S. than it is 500,000.

Abortifacient medications, plus improved contraception (pharma companies, please note), will eventually make surgical abortion virtually unnecessary.

This is a very good point.

Sex robots and artificial wombs will make women unnecessary.

You'll probably hear about that first on wordforge (or the TrekBBS).

i think very little will change. Firstly i dont think Trump will appoint a Scalia jr. so close to the mid-terms. We are most likely to get a moderate center-rightist, he may throw out a further right name with no real chance to appease the harder righties, but the truth is that if he does have a wackadoo he wants on the court, he'll wait until Ginsberg hangs up her robe in what wont be an election year.

Sperm banks have already made men unnecessary as mere sperm donors. Y'all will have to cultivate some other skills.

Women don't build anything. They're actually useless beyond being incubators.

It won't drop to 50k, so what then?