Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Escaped Abortion said:
It shouldn't be forced, but offered via bribe. If you bribe people to sterilize themselves for cash, UBI or a tax breaks it will clear out a lot of the societal sink people. They want to stay perpetually teenagers, or like, live as pets to society. We sterilize our pets, it's not even strange, but we also provide for them so they can have cushy lives. I'm sure your average pronoun loving, identity switching person would love to just be rewarded for making a decision like that.
Click to expand...
One thing is sure, if we suggest that to black people, there's one kid who will shout "that's racist!". :story:
 
introvertedobserver said:
Some people do decide exactly that. I know 2, though they couldn't get the procedure done and ended up taking advantage of infant safe haven laws.
Click to expand...
There are very few doctors willing to perform late term abortions because they are quite uncommon.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Just wandering
AnOminous said:
Not the late-term abortions most people have the most problem with. Those are mostly children that were wanted. People don't just suddenly decide at eight months they want to kill a kid right before they're born. The state has no business intervening. Incidentally that's a core holding of Roe that was literally overruled years ago without saying so directly.
Click to expand...
At eight months the baby is perfectly viable so there's really no conceivable reason why one should be permitted to kill it, even if you believe abortions should be permissible.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Cryin RN, Cat Bread, Escaped Abortion and 1 other person
The Wicked Mitch said:
At eight months the baby is perfectly viable so there's really no conceivable reason why one should be permitted to kill it, even if you believe abortions should be permissible.
Click to expand...
What is the point if it is incompatible with life and will either never have a life at all because of not having a brain, or if a condition is diagnosed that makes birth impossible or excessively dangerous. Many of these conditions are caught earlier or end in a miscarriage, but not all serious neural defects are grossly apparent. When anyone passes laws that don't make exceptions for these extreme cases, why? How am I supposed to take this bullshit as in good faith?

I'd at least go as far, though, as saying there should really be an actually solid reason for wanting an abortion that late and it shouldn't be just pure at-will.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Just wandering, BiggerChungus and SCSI
AnOminous said:
What is the point if it is incompatible with life and will either never have a life at all because of not having a brain, or if a condition is diagnosed that makes birth impossible or excessively dangerous. Many of these conditions are caught earlier or end in a miscarriage, but not all serious neural defects are grossly apparent. When anyone passes laws that don't make exceptions for these extreme cases, why? How am I supposed to take this bullshit as in good faith?

I'd at least go as far, though, as saying there should really be an actually solid reason for wanting an abortion that late and it shouldn't be just pure at-will.
Click to expand...
Wait until there's a test available for expecting parents that can determine if the kid is going to be trans. The rainbow flags will turn pro-life in an instant and outlaw even the mention of abortion.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Zig Zag, Male Idiot, Garm and 4 others
AnOminous said:
When anyone passes laws that don't make exceptions for these extreme cases, why? How am I supposed to take this bullshit as in good faith?
Click to expand...
The practical reason is because when the law is unrestricted and the legislative body leaves it to women to practice said freedom "in good faith" of the circumstances you've listed, statistically only about 1.5% of women are getting it for those reasons and the other 98.5% are getting it for "bad faith" reasons. The restriction is reactionary; people demonstrated they'll largely not operate in good faith, so state bodies instituting bans have figured it's easier to deal with that 1.5% case-by-case than to allow the 98.5% to keep doing what is, at least in the eyes of said legislators, bad-faith atrocities.

For example, now if you make a rape exemption, rape claims would just skyrocket. It would put more consensual male partners in danger than it would protect legitimate rape victims. You can't effectively legislate around people acting that way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Netizennameless and JohnDoe
FFinfo said:
For example, now if you make a rape exemption, rape claims would just skyrocket. It would put more consensual male partners in danger than it would protect legitimate rape victims. You can't effectively legislate around people acting that way.
Click to expand...
you can.
in the rape case for example, if there really is a massive increase of bogus "i was raped, give abortion!" claims, the simplest solution i see would be to only allow abortion after an actual rape has been reported with the police. if the investiagation ends up showing that it was a false rape claim, she will be persecuted for wrongful abortion and lying to the police.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Johnny Salami and George Lucas
DumbDude42 said:
you can.
in the rape case for example, if there really is a massive increase of bogus "i was raped, give abortion!" claims, the simplest solution i see would be to only allow abortion after an actual rape has been reported with the police. if the investiagation ends up showing that it was a false rape claim, she will be persecuted for wrongful abortion and lying to the police.
Click to expand...
Women aren't even always penalized for false rape claims as it is because it sets a precedent of double-investigating rapes (not being able to prove it did happen isn't the same as proving someone lied about it happening), and rape court cases take far longer than the duration of a pregnancy.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Salami, Cryin RN and Just wandering
AnOminous said:
What is the point if it is incompatible with life and will either never have a life at all because of not having a brain, or if a condition is diagnosed that makes birth impossible or excessively dangerous. Many of these conditions are caught earlier or end in a miscarriage, but not all serious neural defects are grossly apparent. When anyone passes laws that don't make exceptions for these extreme cases, why? How am I supposed to take this bullshit as in good faith?

I'd at least go as far, though, as saying there should really be an actually solid reason for wanting an abortion that late and it shouldn't be just pure at-will.
Click to expand...
At 8 months the fetus will feel pain and fully react to stimuli... you can see this when babies are born slightly premature like this all the time. There's no good faith in your argument. At that size, there's no non-invasive way of ending the pregnancy either. There's no way the abortion is going to be safer or less cruel than birth. There's no conceivable situation where dialating and slowly stabbing and tearing apart a baby is faster or safer than inducing labor or ceasarian. There's a reason why it's called a partial-birth abortion at that point. The women still has to birth a baby at that point, it can't just be teleported out. We aren't living in medieval times where that might be the grim solution to a baby getting stuck for the slight chance that maybe the woman would live... we'd just do an emergency c-section. Especially because eight months along this is probably a wanted child so the mother has no reason to want to go through a more dangerous baby removal process than just delivery.

In fact, it's so senseless that the best excuse New York could come up with is fucking spite for the baby causing you mental distress... like the knowledge that it gets to live fills the woman with so much seething hatred she needs to have it killed or else she would want to commit suicide. In that circumstance, she's a heinous bitch and we should just let her end herself. Seriously, no matter how much you hate someone you don't get to murder them in their sleep. Calling a near term baby "unconscious" in that circumstance is no less absurd.

Even if your baby is going to be born retarded or deformed, it's still going to be less harmful to a woman's body to just have a ceasarian and then make the baby comfortable as it passes, or just let it be a downie. Downie lives aren't even that bad. If you don't want the downie, let it go to the downie farms with people who know how to handle one. Seriously, there's a downie office worker here. She's doing quite well for herself. We don't even put animals down in as horrific a manner as is done with that late a term of abortion.

Also, if the baby is dead in utero now, it's also not counted as an abortion to induce labor. Women also tend to mourn these babies and even have funerals for them. For that, you are going to want your dead mini baby in tact, so also, these aren't the type who are going to want it in pieces.
If a women is that late term and she has say, pre-eclampsia or full out eclampsia, there's no extra safety gained by tearing the baby apart either... they again, just do a ceasarian or induce labor, even if it's premature. The baby bears a risk to its survival, sure, but no greater benefit would be gained by denying it the chance at that point.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Hammerstein, Netizennameless and George Lucas
FFinfo said:
Women aren't even always penalized for false rape claims as it is because it sets a precedent of double-investigating rapes (not being able to prove it did happen isn't the same as proving someone lied about it happening), and rape court cases take far longer than the duration of a pregnancy.
Click to expand...
i know it's not gonna be perfectly efficient, i just like to hope that the threat of persecution would be enough to deter most from making up fake stories to obtain abortions. also when the abortion is done for rape, you can take dna samples from it for paternity testing, that can help with proving or disproving some of the accusations.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Just wandering
The protests against the Roe vs Wade decision in LA had turned violent.

By The Associated Press
A Los Angeles protest over the leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion that would throw out Roe v. Wade briefly turned into a skirmish with police, who say one officer was injured.
A citywide police tactical alert was declared after a Tuesday night confrontation near downtown's Pershing Square.
Authorities say about 250 people had been marching peacefully for abortion rights before the clash. LAPD Chief Michel Moore says some demonstrators threw rocks and bottles at officers. One officer was struck with a baton.
There was no immediate word of any arrests and the crowd mostly dispersed after a large police presence was called in.
Click to expand...
What a way to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Rodney King riots/1992 LA riots. :story:
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Zig Zag, naaaaiiiiillllll!!!, SCSI and 3 others
LurkTrawl said:
Oral and anal sex are concepts that exist, that don't lead to a baby. Safer than a condom, birth control, or abortion.
Click to expand...
Reposting here with an addendum: why aren't people who are freaking out about this just promote O&A?
 
AnOminous said:
It's the Supreme Court. Their deadline is "whenever we feel like it bitches."
Click to expand...
inb4 someone says this is 4D chess by someone to get the crazies out of their holes and starting shit for whatever reason
 
Just wandering said:
My crude and based sister after seeing the new said she didn't care this dosen't happen here(we're canadian) Also what wrong with banning abortion they could just do it in back alley if they really need one.
This will be a interesting event. The state that would have successfully ban abortion what will happen with the unwanted pregnancy? Will the state would get a huge case of abandoned or CPS children problem?
Or it will lead to the birth(no pun intended) of a succesful abortion cartel(rememeber the prohibition era?) making the ban useless and even counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Whore get's pregers and doesn't figure it out until she's violently ill or getting "fat" wondering how that unprotected bukkake would get her pregnant. She goes to a local foster care to put little niglet for adoption while it's growing in her. The agency finds suitors wanting to adopt. Slag interviews with them so find the right one then we play the waiting game for the Mulatto to get pooped out.

TBH they should just get an IED or their tubes tied, be on the pill, take the special morning after pill, or use a condom. i can't logically understand why people use abortion as plan A. Something happened in the past where people think going through the physical and emotional pain of having a baby torn out of you is the norm of not wanting to have a baby. I get the pills are fairly new inventions since we started digging into the old wacky stuff the Germans and Japanese were doing in the war but geeze. the other methods are much older and should have changed the mentality of not wanting kids.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Ron Jeremy Stan Account, eDove and Male Idiot
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back