Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

This rightwing misogyny isn't the path to victory for the GOP...

a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
Interestingly, Judge Alito who wrote this leaked draft opinion said when he was testifying before the senate, he respected the Row V Wade opinion based on what they call stare decisis (the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.) and didn’t support overturning it…

I guess the only stars he saw were he getting voted on that lifetime SCOTUS!

Maybe his thinking "evolved" like when Obama lied about supporting traditional marriage or pick any one of dozens of things Biden has flipflopped on, including on abortion.

My whataboutism aside, have you read the draft opinion? I've been going through it the last hour or so. He uses a lot of Roe supporter's arguments to take it apart. Supporters have long said what a weakly-supported decision it was. It's a miracle it has lasted this long. It should've been overturned years ago.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

It's a symbiotic parasite, unless you're at risk or experiencing severe pregnancy malfunction in which case it's a regular parasite. No disrespect to babies or anything, it's just science.

we have so many option now to prevent pregnancy. Almost to not need abortion. i understand for very rare circumstances and i understand a right to medical freedom. But because we have other options beside killing babies why do we not use them. Why not have every child at reproductive age be put on birth control instead of abortion? If you really want to have unwanted pregnancy stopped. It is an easier, more humane solution. Have planned parenthood put internal arm birth control for free. solution easy..a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

I know you guys are having a side discussion, but it's worth pointing out that the decision doesn't rely on a scientific argument. It's purely a legal argument. It specifically says on page 29 that they're not making a judgement about whether the fetus is a separate life or person.

originally posted by: HODOSKE
we have so many option now to prevent pregnancy. Almost to not need abortion. i understand for very rare circumstances and i understand a right to medical freedom. But because we have other options beside killing babies why do we not use them. Why not have every child at reproductive age be put on birth control instead of abortion? If you really want to have unwanted pregnancy stopped. It is an easier, more humane solution. Have planned parenthood put internal arm birth control for free. solution easy..a reply to: TzarChasm

If it's not your fetus, then it's not your problem. Common sense.

I just realized I've been spelling it wrong this whole time. D'oh! 😅

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

I know you guys are having a side discussion, but it's worth pointing out that the decision doesn't rely on a scientific argument. It's purely a legal argument. It specifically says on page 29 that they're not making a judgement about whether the fetus is a separate life or person.

Definitely worth pointing out, thank you.

so if someone kills your neighbor, that is not your problem either. i life is a life is a life.
a reply to: TzarChasm

a reply to: SideEyeEverything

I responded to you. Good man or not, of course I do believe she should tell her partner, however, unless he can carry one with the associated risks to his health, finances, the possibility of raising the child entirely on his own, the ultimate decision is hers alone.

originally posted by: HODOSKE
so if someone kills your neighbor, that is not your problem either. i life is a life is a life.
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm also an advocate of voluntary euthanasia which is a felony.

strike at the heart of Griswold, the privacy right as a liberty interest

What right to privacy?

Abolish the "intelligence" agencies and all executive branch functions and then we will talk about privacy! There is no privacy while they exist, and federal employees are given police powers. Which should have never been granted in the first place.

FBI wants to investigate? Like all persons, you are free to do so. But carrying a gun, badge and arrest powers? Not for the government no thank you. Put them back to BOI status.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

We've played this game before.

If you do not consider the unborn human as alive, then that is on you.

I don't know what else to say.

You bring up homeostasis and I would counter with the Krebs Cycle.

But again, it's a way that allows you to accept the deliberate death by dehumanizing the unborn human.

originally posted by: HODOSKE
we have so many option now to prevent pregnancy. Almost to not need abortion. i understand for very rare circumstances and i understand a right to medical freedom. But because we have other options beside killing babies why do we not use them. Why not have every child at reproductive age be put on birth control instead of abortion? If you really want to have unwanted pregnancy stopped. It is an easier, more humane solution. Have planned parenthood put internal arm birth control for free. solution easy..a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm all for that, but, let's implant males in the arm with a hormonal drug that often has unpleasant side effects at the age of 12.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

It's a symbiotic parasite, . . . .

And this is how they dehumanize.

The Nazi's did it with Jews.
The slave owners did it with black people.

The pro-abortion crowd does it with the unborn human.

agreed. a reply to: frogs453

a reply to: marg6043

It is shameful marg6043

Need to find these kids, who is taking them, or at least what happened to them. The worst part about the desert is the vastness. And with all the mineshafts, they could fall in 150 year old works and probably never be found

When we went down to the border, establishing a safe route for them to pass through those kinds of hazards was priority #1
There was a dozen known abandoned mines within a mile radius of where we were staying, and probably more that were never properly marked/lost in time

A lot of the people we encountered were nursing minor injuries, but nearly everyone was dehydrated to some degree

The government has totally lost control

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

We've played this game before.

If you do not consider the unborn human as alive, then that is on you.

I don't know what else to say.

You bring up homeostasis and I would counter with the Krebs Cycle.

But again, it's a way that allows you to accept the deliberate death by dehumanizing the unborn human.

We accept needless destruction and unethical interference in individual liberties all the time. But suddenly this is where you decide the government has the moral imperative to take away our right to choose.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

It's a symbiotic parasite, . . . .

And this is how they dehumanize.

The Nazi's did it with Jews.
The slave owners did it with black people.

The pro-abortion crowd does it with the unborn human.

Yes, I can see how human rights are being infringed upon by thousands of voluntary abortions that don't affect the liberties or quality of life for society.

a reply to: face23785

So then if Obama and Biden are liars then what is Alito?

I read it too and he promises that NO, this decision will not affect other RIGHTS in potential jeopardy if this conservative SCOTUS applies the same reasoning to other RIGHTS they deem not based on the constitution like gay marriage or contraception or civil rights.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

If we want to discuss science, the field of biology identifies an organism as being alive when it meets certain requirements. One of these requirements is the ability to maintain homeostasis.

A non-viable fetus is not able to maintain homeostasis. Thus, based on the biological definition of life, it is not living.

It's a symbiotic parasite, unless you're at risk or experiencing severe pregnancy malfunction in which case it's a regular parasite. No disrespect to babies or anything, it's just science.

Did you just seriously, unironically, compare an unborn child to a parasite? There is something seriously wrong with your head. Maybe this is why there's so much push back against people that think similarly to you. At last.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Actually it absolutely is retruend to states right

Actually, show me. Please site from the draft where it absolutely hands women's reproductive rights exclusively to the states. Show me where the draft opinion bars the federal government through Congress from banning abortion or codifying Roe V Wade.

If this decision nullifies R v W, The States will automatically have their own authority to legislate because the Federal Laws are silent. 🚬