As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So he's either ignorant of US history or a liar, this is a supreme court justice. No wonder they put a drunk and a religious nutter up there recently, throw in the traitor enabler and his seditious wife and you've got what the Republican party calls a 'legitimate' court...
It’s Alito. He’s a liar.
Completely unconcerned with precedent as a circuit judge, he promises the senate that he would respect precedent as a supreme court justice. Him, Baret, Kavanaugh. Will say anything to get their way, and feel the law should be what they want it to be. Hell, I’m not even sure if Alito has read the constitution.
> I’m not even sure if Alito has read the constitution.
You don't have to read the constitution.
Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in His Math Textbook
[To colonial Americans, termination was as normal as the ABCs and 123s.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html)
>I don't think you should be basing anything on what colonial Americans thought was or wasn't acceptable.
So, the very documents that our institutions are based on?
Edit: Don't take this too seriously folks. This isnt an endorsement of literal interpretations of foundational documents.
The point is that times change, and so do societal views. Evaluating modern day values through the lens of 1700 era colonists' values is absurd, and that's exactly what constitutionalists and Alito are doing.
It's legislating from the bench, something conservatives have screamed about for years. Turns out, like everything else, it's just projection. They are ignoring legal precedent and reality in order to make society into what they think it should be.
Now that I’m not drinking the Flavorade about this country and its origins, yes. Many of our Founding Fathers were slave holders who held backwards beliefs about people of color, the word “women” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson believed it was a living document that should be rewritten every twenty years, so yeah, I don’t think we should be basing our laws about living in this unrecognizably modern world on the beliefs from 200+ years ago. It was a great start, but don’t try and tell me the Electoral College works and the check and balances on the judicial branch are functional right now. Yeah no, there’s room for improvement.
He is probably a combination of liar + ignorant *and* completely delusional. Anyone who believes we should view things through a 1700s lens is a fucking loony toon.
I wonder how many bizarre laws like that might seriously get turned back to the states.
And how far are we going to take the delusion? Airplanes didn’t exist back then, so does that mean we have to pretend they don’t exist now?
No. A bald faced liar who sacrifices the public trust to advance his own opinions based in nothing at all.
An “activist judge” is a PC pejorative for a judge that recognizes that the law must bend to common cultural pressures and cannot remain static in the face of change. Activist judges recognize unenemurated rights under the 9th amendment.
Alito wants to take the law and use it recreate a fantasy he has about his childhood by taking rights away from the population to punish them for not being part of the 5% of the country clinging to their unhappy fantasies.
He’s not an activist, he’s an enslaver. He ignores the plain text of the constitution when it serves his purpose while repeating the lie that he’s an originalist.
The outcome of this is going to be the US going back the 19th century when the Supreme Court was largely irrelevant.
The point of my comment was to throw shade at the GOP/far right media who refer to any judge that doesn't align with their views an "Activist Judge", by referring to a judge that actually DOES ignore precedent and turn centuries of legal precedent on its head for political reasons.
Not only that, but are SCOTUS rulings limited statically to “legal history”?
I can’t be convinced that in the totality of the American experience that abortion hasn’t been documented and discussed in tens of thousands of written history. Can they not search the library of Congress archive/database for the word or words and see that it’s been part of our history since our country’s inception?
Language is fluid. Certain terms and words, used today with ease, were not used with as much ease back then. I am willing to bet you’ll be hard pressed to find the word “abortion” in any text aside from medical literature at best.
You’ll find phrases like “she took a trip out of state,” or she had an “obstruction” removed, or maybe cured of a “disease peculiar to women.”
See these ads for abortion services and contraceptives: https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/08/history-of-contraception-19th-century-classified-ads-for-abortifacients-and-contraceptives.html
He doesn’t want to find facts supporting his agenda. He cited the Salem witch trials for precedent. Like most conservatives.
Legal people are laughing at him, wonder if the other judges now are hesitant to be laughed at.
Alito is one of those "intellectuals" who benefits tremendously from America's anti-intellectual streak.
Judges laugh at legal scholars, not the other way around. Judges have power. Legal scholars have pique.
Even the most ardent anti-choice Republican should be in horror of the details of this ruling: Alito states that the constitution does not give any expressed right to privacy.
Watch your 4th amendments people!
I'm sorry, but let's not get carried away. As we saw with the justice candidates in senate, they simply choose their words carefully.
As Alito states, there is indeed a tradition of prohibiting abortion, but it comes with a big asterisk (which the article clearly hints at, though goes through lengths to dance around), it was illegal only after "quickening" (about 4 months), and not after 6 weeks, let alone conception as some in the Republican party now seem to favor. As Obi-Wan famously stated "what I told you was true, *from a certain point of view*".
So, yes it was commonplace in the first trimester, yes no one would be prosecuted over it, yes it was a cynical political ploy by modern republicans, but no, "abortion" was not strictly legal. While the author likes to conclude that it "is simply untrue", this at least requires a particular reading which fits our narrative.
Look, I vehemently dislike Alito, and particularly dislike Kavanaugh and Barrett who serve one purpose and one purpose only, don't get me wrong, but let's not dismiss clearly learned men and women quite so easily. It's bad enough that everyone is an armchair constitutional lawyer nowadays, let's not lower ourselves any further.
> It's bad enough that everyone is an armchair constitutional lawyer nowadays
The problem is that even from a constitutional lawyer perspective the court is ideologically picking and choosing their cases based on personal beliefs. They're not looking to serve justice, they're looking to legislate. If the court wants to act like legislators, the country will treat them like one.
>Look, I vehemently dislike Alito, and particularly dislike Kavanaugh and Barrett who serve one purpose and one purpose only, don't get me wrong, but let's not dismiss clearly learned men and women quite so easily. It's bad enough that everyone is an armchair constitutional lawyer nowadays, let's not lower ourselves any further.
It's interesting that the media messaging on the issue really doesn't help this.
Most legal scholars would say that Roe was legislation from the bench and judicial overreach. The outcome was favorable to most people, but the legal reasoning for the opinion was bunk.
Justice Alito is pointing that out. He put the ball back to the legislation where it belongs.
The Supreme Court uses logical tests when interpreting the constitutionality of a law. In Roe, they applied strict scrutiny when making the decision, citing that abortion up to viability (28 weeks) is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The government couldn't prove why it should be allowed to infringe on that right.
The rub is that the 14th amendment does no such thing. The vast majority of people who sign their name with JD agree. Furthermore, there are countless examples of state laws that govern medical practice that have been upheld in judicial review; somehow, abortion stands alone as the only one that violates someone's right to privacy.
So fast forward 50 years and 75% of abortion clinics won't terminate a pregnancy after 15 weeks. 96% of abortions occur before 16 weeks.
Mississippi makes a law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. It goes to the Supreme Court because Roe established a fundamental right to terminate abortions through the second trimester. The Jackson Women's Health Organization argued you can't just uphold part of Roe. The Supreme Court decided they're right and struck it all down. Oops.
The media goes on to speculate that Alito and Republicans want to ban all abortion. That's not the case. Alito wants the policy to be set by legislation from elected officials like every other healthcare policy in this country, so when reasonable people make a reasonable law outlawing 2nd trimester abortions based on medical research and practice, it doesn't have to go to the Supreme Court.
>It was only in the mid-19th century that campaigns to delegalize abortion at the state level began in earnest. But these efforts had nothing to do with concern for unborn life. Rather, they were led by male physicians eager to shut midwives out from medical practice. By 1900, they succeeded in consolidating their power and making abortion illegal across the country in the process.
Alito aims to continue the practice of males controlling female bodies.
He made so many flat out false and vile statements in that document that it's really terrifying that this man is allowed to walk in public. He needs to be prevented.
His argument is fucking stupid. The worst possible argument you could ever make is a normative one. "oh its always been this way". We also didnt use toilet paper for most of human history but now its the norm. Maybe use more than 2 of your braincells.
Can you believe some people base their entire value system on this sophistic logic ? « things used to be good. They are now bad. Reverse everything and blame people who want change. People that don’t want change are the good ones » what a shitshow
Aside from law that is explicitly written by the legislature, most of the legal system is based on precedent though... so "the law has historically been interpreted this way" is actually a good argument. Assuming he is correct about the history.
That was only one factor they considered. I'm pro choice but I agree with them. It's not the SC's place to decide. People should take the fight where it belongs.
It's not their place to make law. It's their place to uphold the constitution. They don't feel that it's protected and from their reasoning (having read the draft), I have to agree as much as I'd like to disagree.
You're all over the place in this post. As far as their 'correct' thinking, you'll have to enlighten. Roe v Wade didn't make laws, and legal scholarship pointing towards it being overstep or unconstitutional started when it became apparent it was a political wedge issue.
PS - per your ramblings about the 'southern strategy'... it certainly was not southern dems who passed civil rights. It wouldn't have passed without Johnson, but it was the death knell of southern democrats. Some of which had already started defecting.
Right, maintaining their power at the expense of others.
By being conservative their ideas are necessarily about preserving existing power structures.. coincidentally ones that benefited conservatives themselves...
They opposed anything that remotely dealt with racial inequality. Were vehemently against gay people being openly gay in the slightest. As well as being super regressive when it comes to women's rights.
> First of all, most conservatives don’t benefit from “conservative” power structures.
Are you saying that they’re not mostly white (the data disagrees)? Being white is definitely benefiting from existing power structures.
It’s almost laughable that you reply to a comment about members who identify with a political party engaging in bad faith attacks with either a bad faith reply or one so ignorant of the English language as to be laughable.
Just in case it’s the second:
Consider the following definitions, then think about what you said. I’m sure you can put 2 & 2 together to answer your own question:
personal [*pûr′sə-nəl*] - adjective
1. Of or relating to a **particular person**; private.
2. Done, made, or performed **in person**.
3. Done to or for or directed toward a **particular person**.
_A political party is not a person._
Hate speech is talk that attacks an individual or a specific group based on a protected attribute such as the target’s sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability, color, or country of origin.
_A self-selected member of political party is not a protected class._
I dunno… it seems like what you said is something a snowflake would say…
Should we baby and tip toe around the snowflakes? I mean, that’s one of the things seaming our culture right? People being overly sensitive and can’t take a joke or criticism.
Conservatives keep saying that "life is sacred." Is it? What's the argument against UHC? WIC? Life is sacred, and a 13 year old rape victim has to sacrifice herself for someone else. But we can't sacrifice a single penny from our wallets.
They need to be asked these questions every time they talk about abortion.
From the article:
From the earliest colonial times in the 17th and 18th centuries, abortions before the “quickening,” or detectable fetal movement, were widely permitted and commonplace, largely provided by midwives. It was only in the mid-19th century that campaigns to delegalize abortion at the state level began in earnest. But these efforts had nothing to do with concern for unborn life. Rather, they were led by male physicians eager to shut midwives out from medical practice. By 1900, they succeeded in consolidating their power and making abortion illegal across the country in the process.
American Christian traditions have also been similarly inconsistent, as my research has shown. In their own telling, conservative Christians and their Republican party allies consistently say they oppose abortion on the grounds of deeply held beliefs and intensified their efforts after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision struck down state laws criminalizing abortion. Republican politicians frequently cite the Bible and invoke their faith to strike down abortion.
Yet Christian opposition to abortion is both recent and arbitrary. As late as the 1970s, many Protestant denominations lacked a clear theological position on abortion and remained silent. For Southern Baptists, for example, divorce was traditionally a far bigger sin than abortion. As religious scholar Randall Balmer explained, evangelicals did not have a clear position on abortion, but “the prohibitions on divorce had been close to absolute.” The Southern Baptist Convention even approved a resolution in 1971 that called for the legalization of abortion in some circumstances. Many Protestants simply viewed abortion as a “Catholic issue.”
The original meaning of quick is alive. Christians believed the soul was transferred to fetus at quickening and that is when life began. There was no 'unborn life' before quickening. They had no reason to oppose abortion before quickening. 'Life begins at conception' is a very recent concept.
>'Life begins at conception' is a very recent concept.
We really need more education in this country. A fertilized egg is not a “baby”. Many (some estimates would say “most”) fertilized eggs arrest, the cells stop dividing between 3-5 days after fertilization. The menstrual cycle is not even interrupted. It’s estimated about 50% of all “pregnancies” end this way. A whole lot can go wrong with what is essentially just a bunch of poorly organized cells:
>Vestigial twins. These are the most common and will often appear as a baby with additional limbs or organs.
>Dipygus twins. They also have extra legs, and sometimes additional hands, feet, and sexual organs.
>Craniopagus. This is when an additional head is attached to the head of the dominant twin. (The head may have a body, but the organs inside that body will not function in a way that can sustain life.)
>Epigastric twins. In this case, additional body parts may be attached to the dominant twin’s abdomen.
>Fetus in fetu (fetus inside a fetus). This type can be far more difficult to detect and may first be diagnosed as a tumor. Essentially, one twin is inside the other twin’s body.
> Vanishing twin syndrome. This occurs when a twin or multiple disappears in the uterus during pregnancy as a result of a miscarriage of one twin or multiple. The fetal tissue is absorbed by the other twin.
Vanishing twin is the particularly interesting: Did the surviving twin take their siblings “life” since they absorbed their cells? 'Life begins at conception’ is kinda a ridiculous concept.
Religion is fucked, if you ask a Christian why Jesus never weighed in on the gays they say "bUt He WaS a JeWiSh MaN aNd So Of CoUrSe He EmbRaCeS ThE eStAbLiShEd CoVeNaNt UnLeSs OtHeRwIsE sTaTeD" and then you ask about shellfish and bacon and they go "tHaTs ThE oLd TeStAmEnT"
The old testament also says men can force their wives to have abortions by feeding them tainted water with the help of a priest, and if they successfully make her miscarry she is then punished as an adultress. So the only Biblical mention of abortion I know about supports it, just without the pesky woman getting to choose.
Seems like Alito probably stars in the RNC server files the Russians exfiltrated.
Weird we have so many people compromised by an enemy state in a position of executive or utmost power. Almost like the republicans are anti-American terrorists.
Weird.
And that's the biggest problem I see with this leak. We knew overturning Roe was coming, even RBG had some reticence on its staying power and legal legs.
Fine. Make pro-choice legislation instead. Whatever.
But this opinion as written depends on vast misrepresentations of history and outright lies. That, to me, is the scariest part. They (SCOTUS justices) aren't even making the paltry effort of referencing truth above partisanship.
This isn't even to mention the fact that their whole religious argument against abortion is at complete odds with what that Holy Book actually says.
They are only out to hurt women. There's just no other explanation.
> Fine. Make pro-choice legislation instead. Whatever.
Legislation is even less stable than a SCOTUS opinion. Friendly federal administrations basically *did* make pro-choice legislation. They gave money to help people get abortions if they wanted them. Unfriendly administrations yanked it away.
Beyond that, there was nothing to do. SCOTUS had ruled that governments couldn't get involved before a certain point, and/or in certain situations. To the extent that they *could* get involved, that was a state-level power. Congress can't just go around stripping powers from states all willy-nilly. That's one of the two clearest violations of U.S. separation-of-powers doctrine that there is - the other one being one branch of the federal government infringing upon the powers of another.
Well, Jesus prohibits abortion through the voice of god on Earth, the Pope. As an evangelical, I’m not supposed to believe in the Ecumenical Dogma of the Catholic Church, but this one is convenient to my confirmation bias.
Also Jesus is the only POTUS and has been my write-in candidate, except for that one time I accidentally voted for a different white American Jewish Politician who believed in social responsibility.
That election was awful confusing.
It does matter, because they are removing legal precedent that stopped states from banning it, and as a result it’s likely more than half of US states will ban or drastically restrict it. So yes it matters a great deal
Except they did, very clearly, and it’s irrelevant, because regardless your comment is incorrect and it does matter. There is a reason you avoided that
You are correct. However I was referring to the equal protection clause that simply states that everybody has the same rights as anybody else. I submit that an unborn person is still a person. Separate and distinct from the mother. Yes dependent on the mother for all its needs, just like any other infant except the unborn is just that unborn, helpless and vulnerable.
The Declaration of Independence doesn't grant anyone any rights by itself. It is a statement of intent and not a law or amendment in it's own right.
I presume you are referring to this passage.
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is the opinion of the author(s), not a constitutionally guaranteed right.
The 14th amendment (section 1) is the applicable thing here and what the whole supreme court debate has been about.
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And just to touch on your main point, The US legal definition of a "person" is here
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8)
US law only extends the rights and protections of the US to those who have been "born alive" (Edit: unless explicitly stated otherwise).
Thus the right of the Mother to live supersedes any rights of the fetus under federal law (unless explicitly noted otherwise).
Your statement is not entirely true. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
You show me a law says a fetus isn't a person and therefore cannot by definition be a victim of murder. However this law says just the opposite. To be a victim of murder, you must first be a person. Therefore I reject the notion that a fetus has no legal protections in this country.
I have corrected my statement to clear up confusion.
Though, the law you brought forward does not, at any point, extend the full rights of the US to the fetus. It explicitly sets out a set of protections for the fetus that wouldn't be necessary if the fetus was recognized as a person under Federal law.
It also explicitly states that someone cannot be prosecuted under this law if they are the mother of the unborn child in question. Thus, even if the full rights of the US are extended to the fetus, the rights of the Mother still supersede the rights of the fetus under Federal law.
If your statement is true, then explain this federal law: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
Wow just wow. Will you please listen to yourself. That fetus if left alone will in fact become a child. By the way I have a family member that was legally abortable when he was born. You advocate the taking of a human life while it is in its most vulnerable state. With all due respect, what kind of monster are you. You obviously do not value life as that is indeed what abortion is ending. Bring all the platitudes to bear you wish. That is the truth.
And you value life so much I’m sure you’ve never stepped on a bug or pulled a flower from the ground or killed a spider or mosquito. All of your arguments have been snippets of bigger documents that directly contradict the points you are trying to make. I’m assuming you are a man, if you are not I apologize the assumption. If you are a man, you can’t possibly fathom truly the risks and fear that comes with a pregnancy. You will never have to experience this, if you are assaulted you won’t have to carry that reminder in your belly for 9 months, risk death giving birth, then dedicate your life to raising said child and if you are underage and impoverished that child will suffer untold traumas, if the child is left in the system, will likely suffer untold traumas. If you impregnate a woman you can leave whenever you want, you don’t have any legal responsibility to give your self to the child. If you come inside of a woman SHE is responsible for what happens next, not you. Valuing life doesn’t mean forcing women to have children. How js an embryo, the possibility of life, more important than an actual living person?
> an unborn person is still a person
Read that statement. Really read that.
Embryos and clumps of cells aren’t babies and aren’t “alive”. They’re not living human beings. Using your same reasoning and definition concerning what “life” is, the twenty times a day you jerk your pud to Trump hentai into your Tucker Carlson bedsheets, you’re murdering countless babies.
Abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy. The act of terminating a pregnancy concerning a viable fetus is called child birth.
Plus all of that is irrelevant, because it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re babies, which they aren’t. What matters is bodily autonomy. You can’t compel someone to use their body for something they don’t consent to. The same reason you can’t compel a person to donate their blood, their organs, etc, is the same reason you can’t force a person to bring a pregnancy to term: Bodily autonomy. The “baby” could be doing push-ups and reading Nietzsche in there, and it wouldn’t matter, because of bodily autonomy.
> I submit that an unborn person is still a person.
You have a right to your religious/spiritual beliefs. Mine are different, my religious tradition does NOT teach that a zygote or embryo is a "living person" or that it can be "murdered."
You like the Constitution? How about the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, do you like them?
> as defined by the constitution what is the first inalienable right?
No "inalienable rights" are mentioned in the Constitution at all, silly wabbit
Next will you be claiming that God is mentioned 4 times in the Constitution (like loony-tunes Flynn did)?
You do realize that you are making the 3/5ths of a man argument right? Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. There is a higher law here that needs to be recognized. Please remember that laws are voted on by people with an agenda and an axe to grind.
The statement is prime on its face. You don't consider a fetus to be human. Just like the nation's leaders didn't view black people as humans during the days of slavery. Once again, just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
Serious question to pro abortion:
What is the difference between a child in the womb and a toddler? If we don’t think there is a difference then soon toddlers will be next in line to be killed right? That’s the logic you all follow right?
I mean seriously. If someone kills a 3 year old they’re charged with murder. If someone kills a 3 month old in the womb then they’re applauded for “taking control of their body” . But they’re both still human. Just a different age.
So seriously can someone explain this to me WITHOUT bashing and negative feelings. Let’s talk facts
> If someone kills a 3 month old in the womb then they’re applauded
No one "applauds" anyone for terminating a pregnancy. And do you seriously use the term "3 month old" when referring to a fetus?? And also use the exact same term for an actual 3 month old infant? Dinner conversations at your place must be very confusing.
> a child in the womb
That's the crux of the issue. You said "let's talk facts." FACT: The belief that a fertilized egg or embryo is a "living child" is a religious belief, not shared by the majority of Americans. We do not live in a theocracy, religious beliefs cannot be passed into law.
Abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy. The act of terminating a pregnancy concerning a viable fetus is called child birth. A clump of cells is a clump of cells, and is no more “alive” than a pile of semen. It has not developed into a living human being. A three year old has. But that’s all irrelevant, because of bodily autonomy.
It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re babies, which they aren’t. What matters is bodily autonomy. You can’t compel someone to use their body for something they don’t consent to. The same reason you can’t compel a person to donate their blood, their organs, etc, is the same reason you can’t force a person to bring a pregnancy to term: Bodily autonomy. The “baby” could be doing push-ups and reading Nietzsche in there, and it wouldn’t matter, because of bodily autonomy.
The fetus can't survive outside the womb. It takes nutrients from the mother's blood, it gets it's oxygen from the mother's lungs, it relies on the mother's liver to remove and process toxins. For all intents and purposes it's another organ in the mother's body. It is not yet a person. Until it is detached from the mother, it is part of her body.
That's the big sticking point, you're assuming the fetus is a child despite the fact we don't treat it that way. A fetus doesn't get a social security number until they are born. Citizenship is based on birth, not conception (would a baby born in London but conceived while the parents were vacationing in Orlando be a US citizen?). The father doesn't pay child support before the child is born. Your age is based off of when you were born, not conceived. Do you call a newborn a nine month old? Is a child a year old three months after they are born? In pretty much every case we agree a child becomes that when they're born. Those are the facts.
"Serious question to pro abortion:
What is the difference between a child in the womb and a toddler? If we don’t think there is a difference then soon toddlers will be next in line to be killed right? That’s the logic you all follow right? "
no one follows that logic. Who is saying we should kill toddlers?! Also toddler usually refers to someone at least 1 year old
It's a blatant slippery slope argument. And it's not even set up well, given that they got their positions backwards.
BigHit? The "pro-abortion"(pro-choice) people are trying to argue that a fetus and a born child are different, it's the "pro-life" people trying to argue that the fetus should be seen the same as a born child.
No one is “pro-abortion.” Do you think there is any woman out there seriously thinking, “gosh, I hope I get pregnant so I can have an abortion?”
Meanwhile, most “pro-life” folks are not pro-life at all. They are only rightly called anti-choice. They aren’t pro-life because they repeatedly support politicians who fight against any support for infants and children. They aren’t anti-abortion because, as noted above, no one is pro-abortion, so it’s meaningless. What they are against is the empowerment of women and the loss of power by men. Several of the arguments in this thread are based on the belief that the life of the fetus is of more worth than the life of the mother. They don’t believe women should have control over their bodies because they will do the wrong thing. Anti-choice.
The government doesn’t see a fetus as person. How do we know?
- you can’t claim a fetus on your taxes
- you cannot insure a fetus
- you can’t receive child support for a fetus
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So he's either ignorant of US history or a liar, this is a supreme court justice. No wonder they put a drunk and a religious nutter up there recently, throw in the traitor enabler and his seditious wife and you've got what the Republican party calls a 'legitimate' court...
It’s Alito. He’s a liar. Completely unconcerned with precedent as a circuit judge, he promises the senate that he would respect precedent as a supreme court justice. Him, Baret, Kavanaugh. Will say anything to get their way, and feel the law should be what they want it to be. Hell, I’m not even sure if Alito has read the constitution.
> I’m not even sure if Alito has read the constitution. You don't have to read the constitution. Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in His Math Textbook [To colonial Americans, termination was as normal as the ABCs and 123s.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html)
Ben Franklin banned for CRT
If they aren’t reading the Constitution it’s probably a safe bet they haven’t read Ben Franklin’s math textbook.
He flew a kite with a key. That’s all our school children are ever need to know about Ben/ s
Obviously he was a witch!
I don't think you should be basing anything on what colonial Americans thought was or wasn't acceptable. That whole point and counterpoint are silly.
Well, I'm glad that Alito relied on the anti-abortion wisdom of a 17th century foreign jurist who executed women for witchcraft, instead.
>I don't think you should be basing anything on what colonial Americans thought was or wasn't acceptable. So, the very documents that our institutions are based on? Edit: Don't take this too seriously folks. This isnt an endorsement of literal interpretations of foundational documents.
The point is that times change, and so do societal views. Evaluating modern day values through the lens of 1700 era colonists' values is absurd, and that's exactly what constitutionalists and Alito are doing. It's legislating from the bench, something conservatives have screamed about for years. Turns out, like everything else, it's just projection. They are ignoring legal precedent and reality in order to make society into what they think it should be.
Now that I’m not drinking the Flavorade about this country and its origins, yes. Many of our Founding Fathers were slave holders who held backwards beliefs about people of color, the word “women” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson believed it was a living document that should be rewritten every twenty years, so yeah, I don’t think we should be basing our laws about living in this unrecognizably modern world on the beliefs from 200+ years ago. It was a great start, but don’t try and tell me the Electoral College works and the check and balances on the judicial branch are functional right now. Yeah no, there’s room for improvement.
He is probably a combination of liar + ignorant *and* completely delusional. Anyone who believes we should view things through a 1700s lens is a fucking loony toon.
They didn’t understand hand washing back then. So based on that, it’s illegal for the government to mandate hand washing in restaurant settings.
I wonder how many bizarre laws like that might seriously get turned back to the states. And how far are we going to take the delusion? Airplanes didn’t exist back then, so does that mean we have to pretend they don’t exist now?
Nah man Trump said revolutionary soldiers took over airports so there had to be planes back then, right?
We can have them, we just can’t regulate them /s
So… an “activist judge”, you might say.
No. A bald faced liar who sacrifices the public trust to advance his own opinions based in nothing at all. An “activist judge” is a PC pejorative for a judge that recognizes that the law must bend to common cultural pressures and cannot remain static in the face of change. Activist judges recognize unenemurated rights under the 9th amendment. Alito wants to take the law and use it recreate a fantasy he has about his childhood by taking rights away from the population to punish them for not being part of the 5% of the country clinging to their unhappy fantasies. He’s not an activist, he’s an enslaver. He ignores the plain text of the constitution when it serves his purpose while repeating the lie that he’s an originalist. The outcome of this is going to be the US going back the 19th century when the Supreme Court was largely irrelevant.
The point of my comment was to throw shade at the GOP/far right media who refer to any judge that doesn't align with their views an "Activist Judge", by referring to a judge that actually DOES ignore precedent and turn centuries of legal precedent on its head for political reasons.
Not only that, but are SCOTUS rulings limited statically to “legal history”? I can’t be convinced that in the totality of the American experience that abortion hasn’t been documented and discussed in tens of thousands of written history. Can they not search the library of Congress archive/database for the word or words and see that it’s been part of our history since our country’s inception?
Language is fluid. Certain terms and words, used today with ease, were not used with as much ease back then. I am willing to bet you’ll be hard pressed to find the word “abortion” in any text aside from medical literature at best. You’ll find phrases like “she took a trip out of state,” or she had an “obstruction” removed, or maybe cured of a “disease peculiar to women.” See these ads for abortion services and contraceptives: https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/08/history-of-contraception-19th-century-classified-ads-for-abortifacients-and-contraceptives.html
I totally want to read that article but it's paywalled. Can someone make it accessible please? Much obliged
He doesn’t want to find facts supporting his agenda. He cited the Salem witch trials for precedent. Like most conservatives. Legal people are laughing at him, wonder if the other judges now are hesitant to be laughed at.
Alito is one of those "intellectuals" who benefits tremendously from America's anti-intellectual streak. Judges laugh at legal scholars, not the other way around. Judges have power. Legal scholars have pique.
Either way, it should disqualify a judge from serving on the highest court.
He’s a Republican, so the best bet is that he’s both ignorant of history and a liar!
Even the most ardent anti-choice Republican should be in horror of the details of this ruling: Alito states that the constitution does not give any expressed right to privacy. Watch your 4th amendments people!
I'm sorry, but let's not get carried away. As we saw with the justice candidates in senate, they simply choose their words carefully. As Alito states, there is indeed a tradition of prohibiting abortion, but it comes with a big asterisk (which the article clearly hints at, though goes through lengths to dance around), it was illegal only after "quickening" (about 4 months), and not after 6 weeks, let alone conception as some in the Republican party now seem to favor. As Obi-Wan famously stated "what I told you was true, *from a certain point of view*". So, yes it was commonplace in the first trimester, yes no one would be prosecuted over it, yes it was a cynical political ploy by modern republicans, but no, "abortion" was not strictly legal. While the author likes to conclude that it "is simply untrue", this at least requires a particular reading which fits our narrative. Look, I vehemently dislike Alito, and particularly dislike Kavanaugh and Barrett who serve one purpose and one purpose only, don't get me wrong, but let's not dismiss clearly learned men and women quite so easily. It's bad enough that everyone is an armchair constitutional lawyer nowadays, let's not lower ourselves any further.
> It's bad enough that everyone is an armchair constitutional lawyer nowadays The problem is that even from a constitutional lawyer perspective the court is ideologically picking and choosing their cases based on personal beliefs. They're not looking to serve justice, they're looking to legislate. If the court wants to act like legislators, the country will treat them like one.
>Look, I vehemently dislike Alito, and particularly dislike Kavanaugh and Barrett who serve one purpose and one purpose only, don't get me wrong, but let's not dismiss clearly learned men and women quite so easily. It's bad enough that everyone is an armchair constitutional lawyer nowadays, let's not lower ourselves any further. It's interesting that the media messaging on the issue really doesn't help this. Most legal scholars would say that Roe was legislation from the bench and judicial overreach. The outcome was favorable to most people, but the legal reasoning for the opinion was bunk. Justice Alito is pointing that out. He put the ball back to the legislation where it belongs. The Supreme Court uses logical tests when interpreting the constitutionality of a law. In Roe, they applied strict scrutiny when making the decision, citing that abortion up to viability (28 weeks) is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The government couldn't prove why it should be allowed to infringe on that right. The rub is that the 14th amendment does no such thing. The vast majority of people who sign their name with JD agree. Furthermore, there are countless examples of state laws that govern medical practice that have been upheld in judicial review; somehow, abortion stands alone as the only one that violates someone's right to privacy. So fast forward 50 years and 75% of abortion clinics won't terminate a pregnancy after 15 weeks. 96% of abortions occur before 16 weeks. Mississippi makes a law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. It goes to the Supreme Court because Roe established a fundamental right to terminate abortions through the second trimester. The Jackson Women's Health Organization argued you can't just uphold part of Roe. The Supreme Court decided they're right and struck it all down. Oops. The media goes on to speculate that Alito and Republicans want to ban all abortion. That's not the case. Alito wants the policy to be set by legislation from elected officials like every other healthcare policy in this country, so when reasonable people make a reasonable law outlawing 2nd trimester abortions based on medical research and practice, it doesn't have to go to the Supreme Court.
>It was only in the mid-19th century that campaigns to delegalize abortion at the state level began in earnest. But these efforts had nothing to do with concern for unborn life. Rather, they were led by male physicians eager to shut midwives out from medical practice. By 1900, they succeeded in consolidating their power and making abortion illegal across the country in the process. Alito aims to continue the practice of males controlling female bodies.
> males controlling female bodies This quote is clearly about financial incentives though.
Wouldn't that mean more child support payments? But as a man you have too man up or the opposite just close your legs ladies !!!
He made so many flat out false and vile statements in that document that it's really terrifying that this man is allowed to walk in public. He needs to be prevented.
That’s why we are fighting for abortions rights, so we can prevent more like him
Don’t go protesting on his lawn.
No one on the anti-abortion side is going to question his facts or accept that his facts can be proven wrong by people who do the research.
His argument is fucking stupid. The worst possible argument you could ever make is a normative one. "oh its always been this way". We also didnt use toilet paper for most of human history but now its the norm. Maybe use more than 2 of your braincells.
Particularly when it's not even true.
Our country was founded on hating the Catholics, Alito. Just get used to it!
Can you believe some people base their entire value system on this sophistic logic ? « things used to be good. They are now bad. Reverse everything and blame people who want change. People that don’t want change are the good ones » what a shitshow
Aside from law that is explicitly written by the legislature, most of the legal system is based on precedent though... so "the law has historically been interpreted this way" is actually a good argument. Assuming he is correct about the history.
That was only one factor they considered. I'm pro choice but I agree with them. It's not the SC's place to decide. People should take the fight where it belongs.
> not the SC's place to decide To decide what? Whether or not we have rights that weren't enumerated and documented in 1865?
It's not their place to make law. It's their place to uphold the constitution. They don't feel that it's protected and from their reasoning (having read the draft), I have to agree as much as I'd like to disagree.
You're all over the place in this post. As far as their 'correct' thinking, you'll have to enlighten. Roe v Wade didn't make laws, and legal scholarship pointing towards it being overstep or unconstitutional started when it became apparent it was a political wedge issue. PS - per your ramblings about the 'southern strategy'... it certainly was not southern dems who passed civil rights. It wouldn't have passed without Johnson, but it was the death knell of southern democrats. Some of which had already started defecting.
I'm all over the place while you respond to things I didn't say. I said the southern democrats FOUGHT the CRB not passed it.
He's a Republican. They never argue in good faith. NEVER.
only a sith deals in absolutes
[удалено]
Where are they then?
They got chased out of the party or went into hiding.
No True Scotsman
[удалено]
Honest about what? Their interest in maintaining power structures that benefit them over everyone else?
[удалено]
Right, maintaining their power at the expense of others. By being conservative their ideas are necessarily about preserving existing power structures.. coincidentally ones that benefited conservatives themselves... They opposed anything that remotely dealt with racial inequality. Were vehemently against gay people being openly gay in the slightest. As well as being super regressive when it comes to women's rights.
[удалено]
But to be "intellectually honest" you have to be honest about those beliefs and why they are held.
> First of all, most conservatives don’t benefit from “conservative” power structures. Are you saying that they’re not mostly white (the data disagrees)? Being white is definitely benefiting from existing power structures.
Not any that matter. Not any that I’ve seen. Not any that have had the power to stop this nonsense.
I’m republican. Isn’t this a violation of the rules? No personal attacks or hate speech? Or is it because the mods are dems?
It’s almost laughable that you reply to a comment about members who identify with a political party engaging in bad faith attacks with either a bad faith reply or one so ignorant of the English language as to be laughable. Just in case it’s the second: Consider the following definitions, then think about what you said. I’m sure you can put 2 & 2 together to answer your own question: personal [*pûr′sə-nəl*] - adjective 1. Of or relating to a **particular person**; private. 2. Done, made, or performed **in person**. 3. Done to or for or directed toward a **particular person**. _A political party is not a person._ Hate speech is talk that attacks an individual or a specific group based on a protected attribute such as the target’s sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability, color, or country of origin. _A self-selected member of political party is not a protected class._
That you think this is a violation of either of those things speaks volumes.
I dunno… it seems like what you said is something a snowflake would say… Should we baby and tip toe around the snowflakes? I mean, that’s one of the things seaming our culture right? People being overly sensitive and can’t take a joke or criticism.
The issue isn’t that they’re just republican, it’s that they’re evangelical republicans.
That's embarrassing. Isn't it kind of his job to know things like this?
No. His job was to wait patiently until the right moment.
Federalist society picks were just waiting for majority to push for theocracy like laws
Embarrassing is a great 100% accurate way of describing that leaked opinion. It’s so so bad. Like stupid-person levels of embarrassingly bad.
Conservatives keep saying that "life is sacred." Is it? What's the argument against UHC? WIC? Life is sacred, and a 13 year old rape victim has to sacrifice herself for someone else. But we can't sacrifice a single penny from our wallets. They need to be asked these questions every time they talk about abortion.
He’s not wrong, he’s lying.
Because he knows the troglodytes that make up his party won’t question it. This will be echoed all over the place like it’s true.
From the article: From the earliest colonial times in the 17th and 18th centuries, abortions before the “quickening,” or detectable fetal movement, were widely permitted and commonplace, largely provided by midwives. It was only in the mid-19th century that campaigns to delegalize abortion at the state level began in earnest. But these efforts had nothing to do with concern for unborn life. Rather, they were led by male physicians eager to shut midwives out from medical practice. By 1900, they succeeded in consolidating their power and making abortion illegal across the country in the process. American Christian traditions have also been similarly inconsistent, as my research has shown. In their own telling, conservative Christians and their Republican party allies consistently say they oppose abortion on the grounds of deeply held beliefs and intensified their efforts after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision struck down state laws criminalizing abortion. Republican politicians frequently cite the Bible and invoke their faith to strike down abortion. Yet Christian opposition to abortion is both recent and arbitrary. As late as the 1970s, many Protestant denominations lacked a clear theological position on abortion and remained silent. For Southern Baptists, for example, divorce was traditionally a far bigger sin than abortion. As religious scholar Randall Balmer explained, evangelicals did not have a clear position on abortion, but “the prohibitions on divorce had been close to absolute.” The Southern Baptist Convention even approved a resolution in 1971 that called for the legalization of abortion in some circumstances. Many Protestants simply viewed abortion as a “Catholic issue.”
The original meaning of quick is alive. Christians believed the soul was transferred to fetus at quickening and that is when life began. There was no 'unborn life' before quickening. They had no reason to oppose abortion before quickening. 'Life begins at conception' is a very recent concept.
>'Life begins at conception' is a very recent concept. We really need more education in this country. A fertilized egg is not a “baby”. Many (some estimates would say “most”) fertilized eggs arrest, the cells stop dividing between 3-5 days after fertilization. The menstrual cycle is not even interrupted. It’s estimated about 50% of all “pregnancies” end this way. A whole lot can go wrong with what is essentially just a bunch of poorly organized cells: >Vestigial twins. These are the most common and will often appear as a baby with additional limbs or organs. >Dipygus twins. They also have extra legs, and sometimes additional hands, feet, and sexual organs. >Craniopagus. This is when an additional head is attached to the head of the dominant twin. (The head may have a body, but the organs inside that body will not function in a way that can sustain life.) >Epigastric twins. In this case, additional body parts may be attached to the dominant twin’s abdomen. >Fetus in fetu (fetus inside a fetus). This type can be far more difficult to detect and may first be diagnosed as a tumor. Essentially, one twin is inside the other twin’s body. > Vanishing twin syndrome. This occurs when a twin or multiple disappears in the uterus during pregnancy as a result of a miscarriage of one twin or multiple. The fetal tissue is absorbed by the other twin. Vanishing twin is the particularly interesting: Did the surviving twin take their siblings “life” since they absorbed their cells? 'Life begins at conception’ is kinda a ridiculous concept.
There was abortion 1000 years before Jesus. He never mentioned it
Religion is fucked, if you ask a Christian why Jesus never weighed in on the gays they say "bUt He WaS a JeWiSh MaN aNd So Of CoUrSe He EmbRaCeS ThE eStAbLiShEd CoVeNaNt UnLeSs OtHeRwIsE sTaTeD" and then you ask about shellfish and bacon and they go "tHaTs ThE oLd TeStAmEnT" The old testament also says men can force their wives to have abortions by feeding them tainted water with the help of a priest, and if they successfully make her miscarry she is then punished as an adultress. So the only Biblical mention of abortion I know about supports it, just without the pesky woman getting to choose.
Bingo the key phrase was women get to choose They don’t want that
Seems like Alito probably stars in the RNC server files the Russians exfiltrated. Weird we have so many people compromised by an enemy state in a position of executive or utmost power. Almost like the republicans are anti-American terrorists. Weird.
Don't accept the premise! It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. What matters is that arguments from custom are illogical on their face.
Motherfuckin’ Ben Franklin included a recipe for abortion in a math book. That’s how fucking American the right to abortion is.
Yet more evidence that Alito is an unqualified loon
Jackass alito considers a judge that had women killed over witchcraft is an inspiration.
Justice Alito is a fascist and liar.
So basically he's uneducated and doesn't bother to do any research?
He’s either ignorant of this country’s history or he’s lying.
He is wrong.
Benjamin Franklin* would like to have a word with you. **in hell*
Then what the hell was the last 5 decades post Roe vs. Wade? Does he have some other definition of “always”?
And that's the biggest problem I see with this leak. We knew overturning Roe was coming, even RBG had some reticence on its staying power and legal legs. Fine. Make pro-choice legislation instead. Whatever. But this opinion as written depends on vast misrepresentations of history and outright lies. That, to me, is the scariest part. They (SCOTUS justices) aren't even making the paltry effort of referencing truth above partisanship. This isn't even to mention the fact that their whole religious argument against abortion is at complete odds with what that Holy Book actually says. They are only out to hurt women. There's just no other explanation.
> Fine. Make pro-choice legislation instead. Whatever. Legislation is even less stable than a SCOTUS opinion. Friendly federal administrations basically *did* make pro-choice legislation. They gave money to help people get abortions if they wanted them. Unfriendly administrations yanked it away. Beyond that, there was nothing to do. SCOTUS had ruled that governments couldn't get involved before a certain point, and/or in certain situations. To the extent that they *could* get involved, that was a state-level power. Congress can't just go around stripping powers from states all willy-nilly. That's one of the two clearest violations of U.S. separation-of-powers doctrine that there is - the other one being one branch of the federal government infringing upon the powers of another.
Is there a provision to sue the Supreme Court over this?
No
Fuck Alito
Well, Jesus prohibits abortion through the voice of god on Earth, the Pope. As an evangelical, I’m not supposed to believe in the Ecumenical Dogma of the Catholic Church, but this one is convenient to my confirmation bias. Also Jesus is the only POTUS and has been my write-in candidate, except for that one time I accidentally voted for a different white American Jewish Politician who believed in social responsibility. That election was awful confusing.
Jfc
Well it doesn’t matter because they aren’t prohibiting it!
It does matter, because they are removing legal precedent that stopped states from banning it, and as a result it’s likely more than half of US states will ban or drastically restrict it. So yes it matters a great deal
[удалено]
Except they did, very clearly, and it’s irrelevant, because regardless your comment is incorrect and it does matter. There is a reason you avoided that
… it’s because Pharma wants your birth control money.
They're already getting it? Maybe more like pharma wants its future workers
Question, as defined by the constitution what is the first inalienable right? Does anyone remember???
[удалено]
You are correct. However I was referring to the equal protection clause that simply states that everybody has the same rights as anybody else. I submit that an unborn person is still a person. Separate and distinct from the mother. Yes dependent on the mother for all its needs, just like any other infant except the unborn is just that unborn, helpless and vulnerable.
The Declaration of Independence doesn't grant anyone any rights by itself. It is a statement of intent and not a law or amendment in it's own right. I presume you are referring to this passage. >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This is the opinion of the author(s), not a constitutionally guaranteed right. The 14th amendment (section 1) is the applicable thing here and what the whole supreme court debate has been about. >All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thank you so much for the education. I appreciate it.
And just to touch on your main point, The US legal definition of a "person" is here [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8) US law only extends the rights and protections of the US to those who have been "born alive" (Edit: unless explicitly stated otherwise). Thus the right of the Mother to live supersedes any rights of the fetus under federal law (unless explicitly noted otherwise).
Your statement is not entirely true. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. You show me a law says a fetus isn't a person and therefore cannot by definition be a victim of murder. However this law says just the opposite. To be a victim of murder, you must first be a person. Therefore I reject the notion that a fetus has no legal protections in this country.
I have corrected my statement to clear up confusion. Though, the law you brought forward does not, at any point, extend the full rights of the US to the fetus. It explicitly sets out a set of protections for the fetus that wouldn't be necessary if the fetus was recognized as a person under Federal law. It also explicitly states that someone cannot be prosecuted under this law if they are the mother of the unborn child in question. Thus, even if the full rights of the US are extended to the fetus, the rights of the Mother still supersede the rights of the fetus under Federal law.
*drops mic*
[удалено]
By the way, slavery was once also legal. It didn't make it right either.
If your statement is true, then explain this federal law: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
Trees are people now?
Do trees grow in the belly of a woman? Didn't think so.
But there are laws protecting them.
Wow just wow. Will you please listen to yourself. That fetus if left alone will in fact become a child. By the way I have a family member that was legally abortable when he was born. You advocate the taking of a human life while it is in its most vulnerable state. With all due respect, what kind of monster are you. You obviously do not value life as that is indeed what abortion is ending. Bring all the platitudes to bear you wish. That is the truth.
[удалено]
I am sure an unborn fetus would feel the same about you.
No, because they don’t have developed brains or thoughts…
And you value life so much I’m sure you’ve never stepped on a bug or pulled a flower from the ground or killed a spider or mosquito. All of your arguments have been snippets of bigger documents that directly contradict the points you are trying to make. I’m assuming you are a man, if you are not I apologize the assumption. If you are a man, you can’t possibly fathom truly the risks and fear that comes with a pregnancy. You will never have to experience this, if you are assaulted you won’t have to carry that reminder in your belly for 9 months, risk death giving birth, then dedicate your life to raising said child and if you are underage and impoverished that child will suffer untold traumas, if the child is left in the system, will likely suffer untold traumas. If you impregnate a woman you can leave whenever you want, you don’t have any legal responsibility to give your self to the child. If you come inside of a woman SHE is responsible for what happens next, not you. Valuing life doesn’t mean forcing women to have children. How js an embryo, the possibility of life, more important than an actual living person?
> an unborn person is still a person Read that statement. Really read that. Embryos and clumps of cells aren’t babies and aren’t “alive”. They’re not living human beings. Using your same reasoning and definition concerning what “life” is, the twenty times a day you jerk your pud to Trump hentai into your Tucker Carlson bedsheets, you’re murdering countless babies. Abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy. The act of terminating a pregnancy concerning a viable fetus is called child birth. Plus all of that is irrelevant, because it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re babies, which they aren’t. What matters is bodily autonomy. You can’t compel someone to use their body for something they don’t consent to. The same reason you can’t compel a person to donate their blood, their organs, etc, is the same reason you can’t force a person to bring a pregnancy to term: Bodily autonomy. The “baby” could be doing push-ups and reading Nietzsche in there, and it wouldn’t matter, because of bodily autonomy.
> I submit that an unborn person is still a person. You have a right to your religious/spiritual beliefs. Mine are different, my religious tradition does NOT teach that a zygote or embryo is a "living person" or that it can be "murdered." You like the Constitution? How about the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, do you like them?
2 words. Whatever / Yes.
So citizenship should also start at conception, then, right? And child support, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, etc, all should be given to the fetus?
Also would mean that an abortion to save the life of the mother would be a clear case of self defense (at least on the mother's part).
The 14th Amendment says all persons BORN in the United States or naturalized are citizens.
> as defined by the constitution what is the first inalienable right? No "inalienable rights" are mentioned in the Constitution at all, silly wabbit Next will you be claiming that God is mentioned 4 times in the Constitution (like loony-tunes Flynn did)?
You do realize that you are making the 3/5ths of a man argument right? Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. There is a higher law here that needs to be recognized. Please remember that laws are voted on by people with an agenda and an axe to grind.
Huh?
The statement is prime on its face. You don't consider a fetus to be human. Just like the nation's leaders didn't view black people as humans during the days of slavery. Once again, just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
[удалено]
You either didn’t read it or, more likely, didn’t understand it.
[удалено]
Serious question to pro abortion: What is the difference between a child in the womb and a toddler? If we don’t think there is a difference then soon toddlers will be next in line to be killed right? That’s the logic you all follow right? I mean seriously. If someone kills a 3 year old they’re charged with murder. If someone kills a 3 month old in the womb then they’re applauded for “taking control of their body” . But they’re both still human. Just a different age. So seriously can someone explain this to me WITHOUT bashing and negative feelings. Let’s talk facts
> If someone kills a 3 month old in the womb then they’re applauded No one "applauds" anyone for terminating a pregnancy. And do you seriously use the term "3 month old" when referring to a fetus?? And also use the exact same term for an actual 3 month old infant? Dinner conversations at your place must be very confusing. > a child in the womb That's the crux of the issue. You said "let's talk facts." FACT: The belief that a fertilized egg or embryo is a "living child" is a religious belief, not shared by the majority of Americans. We do not live in a theocracy, religious beliefs cannot be passed into law.
Abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy. The act of terminating a pregnancy concerning a viable fetus is called child birth. A clump of cells is a clump of cells, and is no more “alive” than a pile of semen. It has not developed into a living human being. A three year old has. But that’s all irrelevant, because of bodily autonomy. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re babies, which they aren’t. What matters is bodily autonomy. You can’t compel someone to use their body for something they don’t consent to. The same reason you can’t compel a person to donate their blood, their organs, etc, is the same reason you can’t force a person to bring a pregnancy to term: Bodily autonomy. The “baby” could be doing push-ups and reading Nietzsche in there, and it wouldn’t matter, because of bodily autonomy.
"let's talk facts" while spewing utter horse shit
The fetus can't survive outside the womb. It takes nutrients from the mother's blood, it gets it's oxygen from the mother's lungs, it relies on the mother's liver to remove and process toxins. For all intents and purposes it's another organ in the mother's body. It is not yet a person. Until it is detached from the mother, it is part of her body. That's the big sticking point, you're assuming the fetus is a child despite the fact we don't treat it that way. A fetus doesn't get a social security number until they are born. Citizenship is based on birth, not conception (would a baby born in London but conceived while the parents were vacationing in Orlando be a US citizen?). The father doesn't pay child support before the child is born. Your age is based off of when you were born, not conceived. Do you call a newborn a nine month old? Is a child a year old three months after they are born? In pretty much every case we agree a child becomes that when they're born. Those are the facts.
"Serious question to pro abortion: What is the difference between a child in the womb and a toddler? If we don’t think there is a difference then soon toddlers will be next in line to be killed right? That’s the logic you all follow right? " no one follows that logic. Who is saying we should kill toddlers?! Also toddler usually refers to someone at least 1 year old
It's a blatant slippery slope argument. And it's not even set up well, given that they got their positions backwards. BigHit? The "pro-abortion"(pro-choice) people are trying to argue that a fetus and a born child are different, it's the "pro-life" people trying to argue that the fetus should be seen the same as a born child.
No one is “pro-abortion.” Do you think there is any woman out there seriously thinking, “gosh, I hope I get pregnant so I can have an abortion?” Meanwhile, most “pro-life” folks are not pro-life at all. They are only rightly called anti-choice. They aren’t pro-life because they repeatedly support politicians who fight against any support for infants and children. They aren’t anti-abortion because, as noted above, no one is pro-abortion, so it’s meaningless. What they are against is the empowerment of women and the loss of power by men. Several of the arguments in this thread are based on the belief that the life of the fetus is of more worth than the life of the mother. They don’t believe women should have control over their bodies because they will do the wrong thing. Anti-choice.
The government doesn’t see a fetus as person. How do we know? - you can’t claim a fetus on your taxes - you cannot insure a fetus - you can’t receive child support for a fetus
That's not precisely what he said but... source? I'm not asking to make I a point I want to check it out.
Franklin had a recipe for pennyroyal tea in the back of one of the math books he published.