Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:24 PM
not what you'd expect not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,486
If Kavanaugh gets in and Roe v. Wade is overturned, what do you think that will look like?

I just can't imagine it. Seriously, I just can't.

I'm way past the point of ever needing one, but I'm literally shaking just thinking about this.

I honestly don't know if the shaking is fear or anger or both.
  #2  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,435
It'd probably be the biggest boon to Democratic support in ages. It'd also likely result in lots of dead women, lots of abandoned babies, and many more terrible things. Not sure if that really answers your question.
  #3  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:33 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,434
It will look like fucking blood. Literally, and figuratively. It would be a bad, bad scene. Remember the prison riot scene in Natural Born Killers, the director's cut with the warden's head rolling around? Somehow apply that across an entire country.

Last edited by bobot; 09-08-2018 at 07:34 PM.
  #4  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:47 PM
DinoR DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,924
I'd expect something more along the lines of extending the ability for states to increase limitations on abortion along the lines of Casey vs Planned Parenthood than just a complete overturning of precedent. That leaves us looking like the EU. Abortion is generally legal in Europe but also more restricted than is allowed in the US currently.
  #5  
Old 09-08-2018, 08:25 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 12,308
Since the ruling of Roe v. Wade was that states could not criminalize or restrict access to abortions, a lot will depend on the nature of a new ruling. Note that, as I understand it, the Supreme Court can't simply make a ruling independent of a case (nor can it choose to revisit an earlier case that the Supreme Court had ruled upon) -- so, technically, what would be happening is that a new case regarding state-level restrictions on abortions would work its way up to the Supreme Court, and its ruling on *that* case would effectively overturn the ruling on Roe v. Wade.

The net effect will be that, in most, if not all, "red states," abortions will be either made completely illegal, or laden with so many onerous restrictions they're effectively unavailable. It'll likely still be available, probably with few, if any, changes, in most "blue states."
  #6  
Old 09-08-2018, 08:37 PM
zoid's Avatar
zoid zoid is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 9,765
I think kenobi 65 pretty much nailed it. Changes will occur on a state level and if you're relatively well off and in a blue state it will likely not affect you, but if you're poor and in a red state you're going to see you options reduced to risking your very life for an illegal remedy, traveling out of state if you can afford it, or giving birth.
  #7  
Old 09-08-2018, 08:42 PM
robby's Avatar
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,183
If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, I suspect the worst case would be to revert to the pre-Roe situation in which states would be permitted to outlaw abortions.* If this happens, abortions will immediately be banned in those states that have so-called "trigger laws" on the books. These laws are written so that abortion would immediately become illegal if Roe were ever overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Wikipedia, this includes Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia.

Women in these states who have the means to do so would have to travel to another state (or out of the country) to have an abortion. Other women will likely go to unlicensed providers or illicitly obtain abortion pills. Many of these unlicensed providers won't follow normal standards of practice, or the pills may not be what they purport to be. As a consequence, women will die. Abortion providers and women seeking or obtaining abortions will be prosecuted and jailed.

The laws in some states with these trigger laws may subsequently change, such as in Colorado. Others will likely not...at least in the foreseeable future, in states such as Oklahoma. Some other states will likely go ahead and re-enact laws outlawing abortion, such as in Texas or other Republican-controlled states. Ultimately, one might think that this would help overcome the chokehold that the GOP has on so many Southern and midwestern states, but I won't hold my breath.

I'm not sure what happens after that.


*In other words, I don't expect either the Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress to ever outlaw abortions nationwide.
  #8  
Old 09-08-2018, 08:48 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 12,308
Another possible effect, I think, could be that states which criminalize abortions might also try to pass laws making it illegal for residents of those states to travel out-of-state to receive an abortion, or for physicians in those states to even discuss abortions with their patients.
  #9  
Old 09-08-2018, 08:48 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,804
"Pro-life" fanatics will morph from protesters to vigilantes, amatuer slueths searching out those clinics. Wouldn't be surprised to see rewards posted online.
  #10  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:07 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,565
I don't think overturning Roe v Wade even matters to conservatives. If I were a conservative I wouldn't even want Roe v Wade overturned, not when so much damage to Roe v Wade has been done at the state level. Abortion has been mostly outlawed through steal legislation at the state level. If Kavanaugh helpd overturn Roe v Wade, he'll kick off the second wave of feminism, and it will devour the country.
  #11  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:20 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,698
Well, it might devour the Republicans; the country would be fine.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #12  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:37 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,083
It'll look like it does now.

The south and plains states will ban abortion, while the northeast and west coast still have it. The midwest and southwest will be somewhere in the middle.

I guess it is easy for me to say as a man, but hopefully if it is overturned it'll wake people up that yes, elections do matter and we not only need to vote but we need a 21st century voting rights act.

Abolish gerrymandering.
Make voter registration automatic.
Make voting mandatory.
Voting by mail as much as possible.
Expand early voting.
Make election day a national holiday.
Provide incentives to vote.


Basically if you live in a blue (or maybe even a purple) state, you won't see any difference.

If you live in a red state and aren't low in socioeconomic status, it'll be an inconvenience but not a life ending one. You can take time off work to drive or fly to a state with abortions.

However the people in red states who are low in socioeconomic status are fucked.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 09-08-2018 at 09:39 PM.
  #13  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:54 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 12,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
However the people in red states who are low in socioeconomic status are fucked.
This is a page from the CDC, showing the teenage pregnancy rates in each state, as of 2016:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...teenbirths.htm

What this shows is that nearly all of the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are "red states," many of which are already making it more difficult to receive abortions. I'm going to guess that, in many of those states, sex education in schools stresses abstinence-only, as well. Meanwhile, the lowest teen pregnancy rates tend to be in traditionally "blue" states.

If Roe is overturned, and abortion becomes illegal in those states with already-higher levels of teen pregnancy, we might see those rates go up even higher.
  #14  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:23 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,130
I do't see an outright overturn happening. It would rally too much opposition. Even a lot of women who vote Republican would turn to the Democrats over something as blatant as an overturn.

Instead what will happen is an ongoing campaign of whittling away at Roe while keeping it technically in force. Abortions will theoretically remain legal but conservatives will continue to put obstacles in the way of any woman trying to actually obtain one.
  #15  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:26 PM
galen ubal galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,226
Yes, the red states will outlaw abortion - and then they'll take a run at birth control. Remember Kavanaugh referring to birth control as "abortion-inducing drugs" during his hearing?

Gotta keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, right?
  #16  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:32 PM
galen ubal galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I do't see an outright overturn happening. It would rally too much opposition. Even a lot of women who vote Republican would turn to the Democrats over something as blatant as an overturn.

Instead what will happen is an ongoing campaign of whittling away at Roe while keeping it technically in force. Abortions will theoretically remain legal but conservatives will continue to put obstacles in the way of any woman trying to actually obtain one.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the Republicans are trying to enact the will of the majority.
They're not.
As soon as Kavanaugh is confirmed*, there will be multiple cases brought to overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety, depend on it. With a majority, the conservative justices will twist themselves into curls to find some way to overturn it. Bet on it being overturned within a year.


*I don't believe he should be, but I truly doubt there will be any Republicans voting against him, and that's all they need. Even Collins and Murkowski will quickly abandon their previous stance and vote for him.

Last edited by galen ubal; 09-08-2018 at 10:35 PM.
  #17  
Old 09-08-2018, 11:07 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the Republicans are trying to enact the will of the majority.
They're not.
As soon as Kavanaugh is confirmed*, there will be multiple cases brought to overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety, depend on it. With a majority, the conservative justices will twist themselves into curls to find some way to overturn it. Bet on it being overturned within a year.
I'm confident that the Republicans in office are a lot more interested in staying in office than they are in keeping their promises to their supporters.
  #18  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:01 AM
Anny Middon Anny Middon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 922
As Robby said, there will be a thriving black market in abortifacient drugs.

In addition, I believe that women in states that allow abortion will set up "vacations" in their state with some fictional stated purpose, but whose real purpose will be providing abortions. I remember in pre-Roe days, there was a period of time in which abortions were not legal in Illinois (where I lived) but legal in New York. It was widely known that there were trip packages available that provided transportation to New York, lodging, and an abortion.
  #19  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:27 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,804
My Mom. 1968. Flew out of Minneapolis to New York, was supplied with a rental car, a map, and a carload of fearful young women. She took over, but she would have anyway. Got to the clinic, had it done, back to the airport and Minneapolis. No one in the family knew, but me. She asked me for help because I was a hippy who hung out with protesters and knew where to get illegal stuff.

Had a friend, went the alley route. Got an infection that didn't kill her, but rendered her sterile. She became a pediatrician. And so it went.

No. Not just "No", HELL NO!!!!
  #20  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:46 AM
Siam Sam Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 39,806
There will be rioting in the streets.
__________________
Everything happens for a reason. But sometimes the reason is you are stupid and make bad decisions.
  #21  
Old 09-09-2018, 02:33 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,827
I wouldn't be so confident in things remaining fine in the blue states. If Republicans have a unified federal government when it happens, the ruling will be quickly followed by at least an attempt to pass federal legislation to ban or severely limit abortions nationwide, and if it passes it will be upheld by the same judges on the grounds that Congress is the legislative branch and the it is not the job of the courts to say what the law should be. (But if Democrats have control, any attempts to protect reproductive rights at the federal level will be struck down for violating Republican States' Rights.)

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-09-2018 at 02:36 AM.
  #22  
Old 09-09-2018, 06:11 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I wouldn't be so confident in things remaining fine in the blue states. If Republicans have a unified federal government when it happens, the ruling will be quickly followed by at least an attempt to pass federal legislation to ban or severely limit abortions nationwide, and if it passes it will be upheld by the same judges on the grounds that Congress is the legislative branch and the it is not the job of the courts to say what the law should be. (But if Democrats have control, any attempts to protect reproductive rights at the federal level will be struck down for violating Republican States' Rights.)
This. If the Dems fail to win the House this November, the GOP will likely pick up a seat or two in the Senate, and Collins and Murkowski get to cast protest votes for free because the legislation would pass without their help.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed and the GOP controls Congress next year, some conservative state will pass a fetal-personhood law, the Supremes will vote 5-4 that it's Constitutional, and it will be followed by similar Congressional legislation.

Given the willingness of the Roberts court to overturn long-standing precedent on everything from campaign finance to labor law to interpretation of the Second Amendment, it's hard for me to envision that they would exercise restraint here.
  #23  
Old 09-09-2018, 07:11 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,471
They are not going to overturn Roe. They will, however, be more likely to narrow its scope and allow things like 20-week bans.
  #24  
Old 09-09-2018, 09:18 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
They are not going to overturn Roe. They will, however, be more likely to narrow its scope and allow things like 20-week bans.
I disagree. I think a full overturn is possible.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #25  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:00 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If the Dems fail to win the House this November...
I daresay you're going to have bigger problems than the overturning of Roe. It'll be a clear signal that the United States is regressing and nobody gives enough of a fuck to stop it.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #26  
Old 09-09-2018, 03:44 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,701
What's the vote tally?

Roberts ?
Thomas - overturn
Ginsburg - uphold
Breyer - uphold
Alito - overturn
Sotomayor - uphold
Kagan - uphold
Gorsuch - overturn?
Kavanaugh the Perjurer - overturn


I'm guessing it comes down to what Roberts wants to do. Also, liberal justices are older than conservative ones. So overturning Roe is a real possibility.
  #27  
Old 09-09-2018, 05:26 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I daresay you're going to have bigger problems than the overturning of Roe. It'll be a clear signal that the United States is regressing and nobody gives enough of a fuck to stop it.
Tru dat, but even in that environment, overturning Roe would be a huge fucking deal. Not only would legal abortion be ended, but so would all contraception other than barrier contraceptives - at least in much of the country, if not nationally.
  #28  
Old 09-09-2018, 06:10 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,579
You can expect a general, widening persecution against women. Women thrown into prison for miscarriages, hospitals refusing to treat pregnant women for any reason out of fear of being accused of engaging in abortion, and so on; the things you normally see in anti-abortion countries. There will probably be a large spike in the rape and abuse of women in general, as well as a general effort to keep them from voting. Expect many polling places to be surrounded with cops & thugs who will drag off women and imprison, beat or rape them in order to intimidate women into not voting.

In the long run I expect they will be stripped of the right to vote and of most civil rights, reduced to property again.
  #29  
Old 09-09-2018, 07:25 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Given the willingness of the Roberts court to overturn long-standing precedent on everything from campaign finance to labor law to interpretation of the Second Amendment, it's hard for me to envision that they would exercise restraint here.
Your love for long-standing precedent was curiously absent when Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges came along. Don't try to pretend you care anything about precedent: you care about results you like.
  #30  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:17 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I disagree. I think a full overturn is possible.
That would be pretty convoluted to accomplish, since the justification is a right to privacy. They'd either have to get rid of that right, which they will be unwiling to do(imagine the mischief a liberal government that is not bound to respect privacy rights can get into), or explain how the right to abortion isn't a privacy issue. I don't think they can pull off either one. And Roberts cares too much about the reputation of the court to participate in such a farce.

But sure, get one more arch conservative justice and I can see it.
  #31  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:48 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That would be pretty convoluted to accomplish, since the justification is a right to privacy. They'd either have to get rid of that right, which they will be unwiling to do(imagine the mischief a liberal government that is not bound to respect privacy rights can get into), or explain how the right to abortion isn't a privacy issue. I don't think they can pull off either one. And Roberts cares too much about the reputation of the court to participate in such a farce.

But sure, get one more arch conservative justice and I can see it.
I have no doubt that Roberts and his staff could overturn Roe without ruling out some sort of right to privacy in the constitution. In a pinch, he could say that the birth control decision is perfectly well propped up by a reasonable basis test: that's what Bork argued during his confirmation hearings.

Roberts likes to decide things narrowly though. It's his judicial temperament, such as it is, which would get in the way. Roe has been known to be a legally problematic decision for years: it wouldn't be hard to overturn based on argument. Nor is it hard to prop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker
Don't try to pretend you care anything about precedent: you care about results you like.
Interpreting the constitution isn't about achieving ideologically fixed ends. It's about calling balls and strikes. I base my constitutional interpretation on original intent, as reflected in the 9th amendment of the constitution. How do I figure out the original intent of the collection of individuals known as the founding fathers? I use the Scalia method: I read minds across time and space. Armed with my Ouija board, darkened shades, arcane ritual, and strong medicine I glean the inner thoughts of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Napoleon Bonaparte. It turns out that their beliefs almost perfectly match my biases and preconceptions.

I was surprised too.
  #32  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:54 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Your love for long-standing precedent was curiously absent when Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges came along. Don't try to pretend you care anything about precedent: you care about results you like.
And you know, he'll never come back and admit how totally right you were!
  #33  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:43 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Your love for long-standing precedent was curiously absent when Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges came along. Don't try to pretend you care anything about precedent: you care about results you like.
And like every other right winger, all you care about is hurting people. Don't bother pretending to some kind of moral superiority because you like using pseudolegal babble to excuse your malice, you aren't any better than the other thugs on the right.
  #34  
Old 09-10-2018, 09:12 AM
Jeep's Phoenix's Avatar
Jeep's Phoenix Jeep's Phoenix is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Yes, the red states will outlaw abortion - and then they'll take a run at birth control. Remember Kavanaugh referring to birth control as "abortion-inducing drugs" during his hearing?
This is the big one that I expect -- we've already gotten a taste of this offensive with cases like the Little Sisters of the Poor and their 'religious/moral objection' to the ACA's birth control mandate. Never mind the large numbers of women who use some type of birth control to manage a medical condition, or to tame unruly cycles. >.<
  #35  
Old 09-10-2018, 10:25 AM
Mumberthax Mumberthax is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 171
Well, would abortion prohibition come back? I think it would...and the resultant carnage of back-alley butchers armed with coat-hangers and bleach will be so horrific, we'd legalize abortion out of revulsion. If that isn't enough, the sudden rise of children abandoned to the system would overwhelm the system to the breaking point - and that's when we either legalize abortion or start officially tolerating it.

There's also the fact that feminism seems to be a lot stronger than it was back in the 1970s. The patriarchy is seeing its ranks reduced to incel losers who won't be doing any reproducing. This, in turn, causes me to believe that an abortion prohibition would just go the way of alcohol prohibition.

Either way, prepare for one helluva ride.
  #36  
Old 09-10-2018, 11:06 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That would be pretty convoluted to accomplish, since the justification is a right to privacy. They'd either have to get rid of that right, which they will be unwiling to do(imagine the mischief a liberal government that is not bound to respect privacy rights can get into), or explain how the right to abortion isn't a privacy issue. I don't think they can pull off either one. And Roberts cares too much about the reputation of the court to participate in such a farce.

But sure, get one more arch conservative justice and I can see it.
I think from a legal standpoint, it would be fairly easy. The Justices would announce that there is a foetal right to life in the Constitution and that this right to life supersedes the woman's right to privacy.

Legally, it's a hard argument to refute. The basis of Roe is an implied right to privacy. So how can you argue that there's a foundation for an implied right to privacy in the Constitution and there isn't one for an implied foetal right to life? If you argue there are implied rights then one has just as strong a case as the other. If you argue against implied rights, you have to throw out both of them and you lose Roe anyway. And if you accept that both of these rights exist, it's hard to argue that a right to life doesn't outweigh a right to privacy.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 09-10-2018 at 11:06 AM.
  #37  
Old 09-10-2018, 02:34 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think from a legal standpoint, it would be fairly easy. The Justices would announce that there is a foetal right to life in the Constitution and that this right to life supersedes the woman's right to privacy.

Legally, it's a hard argument to refute. The basis of Roe is an implied right to privacy. So how can you argue that there's a foundation for an implied right to privacy in the Constitution and there isn't one for an implied foetal right to life?
Because the latter contradicts how we define personhood and rights everywhere else, and is contradicted by legal precedents going back thousands of years. And it would be very destructive if taken seriously, since the same logic would require giving rights to everything from brain-dead bodies to tumors. It also strips women of their rights and reduces them to as status less than an animal in the law (treating animals like the anti-abortionists treat women would get you prison time a lot of places).
  #38  
Old 09-10-2018, 02:59 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumberthax View Post
Well, would abortion prohibition come back? I think it would...and the resultant carnage of back-alley butchers armed with coat-hangers and bleach will be so horrific, we'd legalize abortion out of revulsion. If that isn't enough, the sudden rise of children abandoned to the system would overwhelm the system to the breaking point - and that's when we either legalize abortion or start officially tolerating it.

There's also the fact that feminism seems to be a lot stronger than it was back in the 1970s. The patriarchy is seeing its ranks reduced to incel losers who won't be doing any reproducing. This, in turn, causes me to believe that an abortion prohibition would just go the way of alcohol prohibition.

Either way, prepare for one helluva ride.
Wow. Talk about sensationalism.

In any case, abortion in the US is not going anywhere at least until society wakes up to the hell that the sexual revolution has brought about, which may take a couple more generations.
  #39  
Old 09-10-2018, 03:43 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Wow. Talk about sensationalism.

In any case, abortion in the US is not going anywhere at least until society wakes up to the hell that the sexual revolution has brought about, which may take a couple more generations.
Hell, really? Pretty sensationalistic, wot?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #40  
Old 09-10-2018, 06:22 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
In any case, abortion in the US is not going anywhere at least until society wakes up to the hell that the sexual revolution has brought about, which may take a couple more generations.
There was more unwanted pregnancies and infidelity before the sexual revolution. And plenty of abortions, they were just more dangerous.

And women not being slaves isn't a "hell".
  #41  
Old 09-10-2018, 06:48 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
In any case, abortion in the US is not going anywhere at least until society wakes up to the hell that the sexual revolution has brought about, which may take a couple more generations.
That's tough, but the good news is that you don't have to wait to enjoy all the benefits of celibacy.
  #42  
Old 09-10-2018, 07:10 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,804
Marriage is just about the only acceptable form of celibacy.
  #43  
Old 09-10-2018, 11:16 PM
Happy Fun Ball Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Marriage is just about the only acceptable form of celibacy.
Wow, where is the upvote on this forum?



To the OP: Roe v. Wade is overturned and you want to know what it will look like? It will look like a huge generation of Democrats being born.
  #44  
Old 09-10-2018, 11:26 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
In any case, abortion in the US is not going anywhere at least until society wakes up to the hell that the sexual revolution has brought about
Well, that EscAlaMiked quickly.

What exactly is this alleged "hell" from the sexual revolution? Premarital sex? Gay rights? More non-monogamous consensual relationships? Declining membership in celibate religious orders? Not seeing what we're supposed to be all worried about as a result of the sexual revolution.
  #45  
Old 09-11-2018, 12:03 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
What exactly is this alleged "hell" from the sexual revolution? Premarital sex? Gay rights? More non-monogamous consensual relationships? Declining membership in celibate religious orders? Not seeing what we're supposed to be all worried about as a result of the sexual revolution.
Widespread hanky panky and an outbreak of shenanigans.
  #46  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:49 AM
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think from a legal standpoint, it would be fairly easy. The Justices would announce that there is a foetal right to life in the Constitution and that this right to life supersedes the woman's right to privacy.

Legally, it's a hard argument to refute. The basis of Roe is an implied right to privacy. So how can you argue that there's a foundation for an implied right to privacy in the Constitution and there isn't one for an implied foetal right to life? If you argue there are implied rights then one has just as strong a case as the other. If you argue against implied rights, you have to throw out both of them and you lose Roe anyway. And if you accept that both of these rights exist, it's hard to argue that a right to life doesn't outweigh a right to privacy.
No way. Persons are understood as born persons. The alternative view is pushed by religious activists, whose goals are frustrated by the 1st Amendment separation of Church and State. The not-so-implied secularism of the government defined by the Constitution suggests the Founders implied privacy but not fetal right to life.

Nonetheless the Right may find a way, in which case when a priest molests your 14-year old, she will have to carry the resulting child to term, exactly the way God has always intended. At least in the, well, not slave states, not the red States exactly, but in a mishmash of places.
  #47  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:27 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 11,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
...
Nonetheless the Right may find a way, in which case when a priest molests your 14-year old, she will have to carry the resulting child to term, exactly the way God has always intended. At least in the, well, not slave states, not the red States exactly, but in a mishmash of places.
Any state that requires a 14 year old rape victim to carry a fetus to term is, at least in my mind, a slave state.

Maybe the 13th amendment would make a better argument than the right to privacy.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885
  #48  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:26 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
I think kenobi 65 pretty much nailed it. Changes will occur on a state level and if you're relatively well off and in a blue state it will likely not affect you, but if you're poor and in a red state you're going to see you options reduced to risking your very life for an illegal remedy, traveling out of state if you can afford it, or giving birth.
...whether you can afford it or not. (the last bit, I mean)


And I expect that, as there were in Spain when abortions were completely illegal, there will be doctors and midwives providing "procedures". It's not an abortion, it's a "procedure". But you'll need to know which doctors and midwives, and you'll need to know either how to ask for it (if you want one) or how to make it clear that you don't want one (if that's the case). Those doctors and their personnel will be facing prison, but it will happen.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot

Last edited by Nava; 09-11-2018 at 04:30 AM.
  #49  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:35 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 11,886
There would probably be a black market in abortifacients.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885
  #50  
Old 09-11-2018, 09:05 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
There was more unwanted pregnancies and infidelity before the sexual revolution.
Source?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
And plenty of abortions, they were just more dangerous.
All abortions are dangerous to the child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
And women not being slaves isn't a "hell".
You think women aren't slaves now?

Last edited by EscAlaMike; 09-11-2018 at 09:06 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017