What do you think will be the outcome of the current scrutiny over Roe vs. Wade?

@Demosthenes: “Do you think Roe vs. Wade will be overturned?”

No idea. But it wasn’t sufficient to begin with. It’s been a fragile thing from beginning, and we should have had a constitutional right that guarantees women the right to control their own body.

@Demosthenes: “What is the outcome you would like to see (nationwide or in your state)?”

Nationwide? I’d like to see reproductive freedom guaranteed. And I’d like to see all these motherfuckers who are trying to control women’s’ bodies stomped the fuck out. Literally.

Any “country” that would allow a state to violate the most basic human right doesn’t have a right to exist.

The religious right Taliban will try to impose their values on the 70% of Americans who don’t buy their religious crap.

Well I’m a motherfucker who will not be stomped out. Interesting concept; kill babies, and anyone who believes in their right to live. Someone who wants so much to protect an industry, they seek to kill many millions of humans, both breathing and unborn, convincing theirself they are compassionate. Don’t break an arm patting yourselves on the back.

In regards to Roe vs Wade, I have never seen it spelled out. I believed for years it was solely about abortion. Recently, I was told it was written to enable abortion, but in a protected information concept. So now I am confused about how my medical privacy might be affected if it is overturned. If that is the case, then I can understand past reluctance to overturn it.

Since the government is suddenly so motivated to make medical mandates, they should make a mandate for all unmarried humans to use birth control for all close encounters. Then maybe birthing people could be prevented from using murder as birth control. Also, people afraid to ask for birth control could be spared that confrontation possibility.

EDIT TO ADD: I have no religion compelling my ethics.

I don’t think they will overturn Roe, although I know that’s what most Pro-Lifer’s are aiming for. They could impose more strict rules about informed consent, parental rights for fathers, as well as parental consent for minors, as well as health code safety rules and inspections, etc….

Plenty of atheists and agnostics are also Pro-Life. I don’t know how the impression still lingers that it’s all religious, ya’ll should do some research.

My state has got rid of all of them but one, and they were closed down for quite some time for unsanitary clinic conditions. But the judge allowed them to stay open after failing inspection, even with bodily fluids and tissues from past procedures left in their equipment.

ew!

@elbanditoroso and you can bet those male conservative religious right have paid for countless abortions to hide their affairs.

It is inconsistent and hypocritical for the right wing to say

“we have bodily autonomy and therefore we don’t want to get vaccines. Leave us alone.”

and at the same time say

“you women don’t have bodily autonomy and we are going to tell you what to do with your body with regards to birth control, abortion, etc.”.

A perfect example of situational ethics to match the religious views of the speaker.

I can’t wait for the breaking news, after it has been overturned (not that I hope it will), that some males who have been cheating on their wives, have to pay child support for the babies that have been born cause of the fact that abortion is then illegal.
But I rather have that no one has to go through this shit.
Who the fuck do those fucking male (mainly) lawmakers think they are to rule over people with a uterus?

Killing someone to make things neat and tidy. The same people who wish hardships on humans who oppose any of their views.

No matter how many times it is mentioned and/or proved that abortion is murder, but choosing to refuse an experimental treatment, and I use the term treatment because it is most definitely not a vaccine, is apples to oranges at best. More likely, apples to granite.

They need to leave it the way it was and not keep trying to overturn it.
The scrutiny will remain the same. But more women will get involved since it involves them.
California has fronted a plan for the entire country, if it is left to the states to decide. Three cheers for California!!

@rebbel Wealthy, powerful men will always have access to abortion to clean up their messes.

The people who would overturn Roe v. Wade are the ones who have no problem with poorer women being mutilated and murdered in back alleys. It’s easy to be self-righteous and sanctimonious when you are convinced that God talks to you.

@product so you would say that China doesn’t have the right to exist? They instituted a policy of forced abortion several years ago. So people didn’t have the basic human right to have a child if they wanted.

Roe v Wade is an interesting case and it has already been overturned somewhat. The original case resulted in a ruling from the SCOTUS that cited the 14th Amendment, a right to a person’s privacy, as a reason for allowing a woman to get an abortion. It should be her private right. But they also said this was absolute. Another issue was the life of the unborn child. RvW actually ended up with the trimester decision. In the first trimester, the choice of abortion was solely with the woman. In the second trimester the potential damage to a woman’s health from abortion was increased so more strict rules about how the abortion could be done had to be spelled out to prove they were not going to harm the woman. In the third trimester, the viability of the fetus was recognized and therefore abortions were entirely forbidden unless a specific threat to the woman’s life could be shown.

But RvW was already altered, as I mentioned. It is actually Planned Parenthood v Casey that is the more current evolution of this decision. This case abandoned the trimester determination but instituted a “viability” determination instead. It kept the original decision that it was a woman’s right to have an abortion and it removed any regulations for governmental oversight of safety on abortions was removed. So what this current TX case would do is modify or overturn PPvC.

Interestingly, about the same time RvW was coming about, the Hippocratic Oath was going away. The original Hippocratic Oath determined life began at conception (which is likely where the original belief came from). It also forbade performing an abortion…period. Prior to RvW, any physician that performed or even recommended an abortion was in violation of their oath. Likely even the doctors that agreed to perform the abortion on Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) were in violation of their oath.

@seawulf575: “so you would say that China doesn’t have the right to exist? They instituted a policy of forced abortion several years ago”

Of course. Are we going to go through every country, or are we talking about the shit one that this question is about? How did you lose focus so quickly?

@product Just trying to figure out how exact your views are.

@seawulf575 It seems odd to me that some physician would balk at performing an abortion while working to eliminate cancer. Both are living things. Life for a human, (or any other form of life) may begin at conception (the same as animal life, like chickens, beef, horses) but when does HUMAN life begin?
The thing that differentiates humans from other life forms, be it animal or cancer, is Man’s ability to reason. At what point does that begin? Where should the abortion line be drawn? What about cancer research/cure/eradication?
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Cancer, really? That doesn’t deserve the detailed proof of fact which makes your comparison ridiculous.

@Patty_Melt It is all in how you look at it.

@kritiper I’m not sure if you are looking at human life as cancer or what. I can tell you that they are not alike. Human life requires a spermatazoa from a man and an ova from woman to combine to start life. Cancer is just the out of control duplication of cells.

The SCOTUS, in PPvC came to the conclusion that science, nor theology, nor philosophy could come to a reasonable answer as to when human life begins so they felt it was outside the jurisdiction of the courts to make the decision. It WAS however in the Hippocratic Oath for thousands of years. It specified that life began at the time of conception. So that MIGHT be where the entire thought process began.

@seawulf575 I don’t think doctors look at it that way. Cancer or fetus, it is a life form.

Doctors take an oath to “First, do no harm.”
You are differentiating, like they must do.

@kritiper The oaths the doctors take these days are varied. First, do no harm is no longer a part of most of them. But I disagree that cancer is a life form. Cancer is living cells, that is true. But it can never become a separate life like a fetus can. And treating cancer and fetuses are very different things.

@seawulf575 That is the opinion of many, obviously. And it is a matter of opinion.