***REDDIT MELTDOWN WATCH*** ROE VS WADE ABOUT TO BE OVERTURNED

submitted by Tarrock from self.MeanwhileOnReddit

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

It's obviously a big deal. It will automatically make abortion illegal in 22 states.

[–]Norseman_Horseman 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Good. Murdering babies is wrong.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

But government deciding what people can do with their bodies is ok?

True goals of this: 1. Organ harvesting 2. Inflating the labor supply to keep wages down

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

People decide what to do with their own bodies. If you don't want to get pregnant, use birth control or don't have sex. Otherwise you accept the fucking consequences because that's how life works.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ah the classic "rape isn't real", "ectopic pregnancies aren't real" argument. Conveniently ignore reality so you can expand control, typical conservative

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lmfao, I'm not a conservative. Nor did I say those things aren't real. 1) pregnancy from rape is the exception from the norm, like less than 1% of abortions, but pro choicers always conveniently focus on that and 2) ectopic pregnancy removal is medically necessary because it's impossible for the fetus to survive. Exceptions don't disprove the rule.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well too bad anti-abortion laws don't give a flying fuck about exceptions

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There are two bodies (or more), and only one of them is hers.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

"women are incubators, not people", a classic

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So you think being able to kill others for your convenience is a human right?

Because otherwise how would not letting pregnant women do so be seeing them as not people?

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"convenience"? Fucking hell man, have you ever met a pregnant woman? Have you ever even talked to a woman?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You don't get to kill someone for any reason, unless they're being a threat and you need to act quickly. That won't fly in any other case, so why is it suddenly okay when it's a woman and her baby?

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In the first place, the "baby" is only able to survive by leeching nutrients from the woman. From inside the woman's body. How do you feel about castle doctrine?

Also the baby was brandishing a gun

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, because a pregnancy is more harmful than being killed.

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's a bit misleading.

It being overturned will not cause that, but instead will allow a number of states more freedom to democratically vote to limit abortions (which many have already done).

Abortion law has many more case precedence impacting them, which will still be in affect. RvW was more of an established precedence of arguably-technically-flawed interpretation of other cases, rather than a direct precedence. The issue will simply fall back to its more core precedence components.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, 22 states have already arranged - via their elected politicians - to restrict abortions. The population of each state did not vote on this (eg. in a referendum). The elected officials voted. Thus all relatively 'red' states will have the politicians in place to vote for strict abortion laws without calling for a referendum. Among the worst examples is in Texas, the state where the original problems developed in 1971. These abortion laws abuse the middle and lower classes.

[–]AXXA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This decision gives the people greater freedom to put forth referendums to restrict or allow abortions.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, democracy decided those states wanted that. We have a representative government system and rarely directly vote on issues.

One person's protection is always someone else's abuse or oppression.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unless you get rid of the matrix at least.