Law Mississippi Abortion Law in SCOTUS: Roe v. Wade in the Crosshairs

[ElKarlo]

I'm bored with you now, Elretardo. You had to move countries to get a relationship.. one that outlaws abortions too, so basically forcing your "trad wife" to have your children. Don't come back.

You’re bored. Wow I’m sure mommy will get you a PS5 for Christmas.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Lmao nah. Saying you should be able to force people unable or unwilling to care for children to have them, and then refusing to help those people in any way and ignoring the negative outcomes? That's moving some goalposts. You can't just make decisions in a vacuum without considering the impact of those decisions on others.

YOU GUYS feel life begins at conception, and should be protected from that point. That is your subjective opinion. Why should you be able to force that opinion on others? If YOU feel that way, then only have sex in committed relationships and acknowledge that if a child results from that relationship you will care for it. I don't like the idea of abortion, so that's what I do. It's my life, those are my choices to make. What I don’t do is try to then force my beliefs on everyone else. Because that is their life, their responsibility. It isn't MY right to force them to live by my moral beliefs.

As far as all your bizarre analogies of a lump of cells to a sentient being with agency, I don't have much to say about them because they aren't relevant at all. Even the most staunch abortion supporters aren't advocating killing teenagers or whatever histrionic stuff you're trying to get into there. If anything read my posts more thoroughly. The pro life people are the ones not acknowledging the reality of their existence once they're out of the womb. I'm the one saying if you force that crappy/unprepared person to have children they can't or won't support, those children are likely to have negative outcomes later in life.

1- who says not to help those people?

2- you do realize that people who are unable or unwilling don't have to raise the kid?

3- which of your morals are you OK forcing on others? No tgefts? Rapes? Murders? Our entire legal system is simply a matter of choosing which morals we will force on the rest of society.

 

[Mike]

1- who says not to help those people?

2- you do realize that people who are unable or unwilling don't have to raise the kid?

3- which of your morals are you OK forcing on others? No tgefts? Rapes? Murders? Our entire legal system is simply a matter of choosing which morals we will force on the rest of society.

1. Society does. By bot helping those people.

2. There aren't enough people adopting to take on all these orphaned and abandoned children. You're just putting more people into the system.

3. You're comparing overt attempts to harm others with controlling the reproductive freedom of strangers. There are actual moral and logical arguments you can make against abortion. This isn't one of them.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

1. Society does. By bot helping those people.

2. There aren't enough people adopting to take on all these orphaned and abandoned children. You're just putting more people into the system.

3. You're comparing overt attempts to harm others with controlling the reproductive freedom of strangers. There are actual moral and logical arguments you can make against abortion. This isn't one of them.

There are tons of programs to help poor people and inexperienced mothers.

We have people literally traveling the globe to adopt foreign children. My buddy went to South America to get his son.

Just a statement of fact that all laws are based on someone's morals (drug laws, prostitution) that are forced onto others. You may not see it that way, but it is; which is why I asked which of your morals are you ok to force on others.

 

[Mike]

There are tons of programs to help poor people and inexperienced mothers.

We have people literally traveling the globe to adopt foreign children. My buddy went to South America to get his son.

Just a statement of fact that all laws are based on someone's morals (drug laws, prostitution) that are forced onto others. You may not see it that way, but it is; which is why I asked which of your morals are you ok to force on others.

So you're just gonna make stuff up and not address points. I mean cool but I won't go back and forth all night with you if you disregard points I already made. There are NOT tons of programs to help you if you're working but are low income. Already went into that earlier itt. You can get welfare if you don't work. Food stamps and housing subsidies too. The working poor "make too much" to qualify for that aid in most cases. The income cut offs are very low.

People traveling to adopt in no way changes the fact that there are always more kids in the system than people that want to adopt.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So you're just gonna make stuff up and not address points. I mean cool but I won't go back and forth all night with you if you disregard points I already made. There are NOT tons of programs to help you if you're working but are low income. Already went into that earlier itt. You can get welfare if you don't work. Food stamps and housing subsidies too. The working poor "make too much" to qualify for that aid in most cases. The income cut offs are very low.

People traveling to adopt in no way changes the fact that there are always more kids in the system than people that want to adopt.

Did I make up something?

Food stamps, SNAP, TANIF, WIC, Hunters for the Hungry, Feeding America, American Harvest, local food banks and clothing banks (we have a free store in my town. Free and reduced school lunches, backpack programs, Headstart. FHA and rental assistance, and income based rentals. We just passed the ACA a few years ago in case you forgot. There are also groups that help young mothers learn how to be good moms and leverage available resources.

Perhaps we're quibbling about the term tons, but there are programs out there.

 

[Mike]

Did I make up something?

Food stamps, SNAP, TANIF, WIC, Hunters for the Hungry, Feeding America, American Harvest, local food banks and clothing banks (we have a free store in my town. Free and reduced school lunches, backpack programs, Headstart. We just passed the ACA a few years ago in case you forgot. There are also groups that help young mothers learn how to be good moms and leverage available resources.

Perhaps we're quibbling about the term tons, but there are programs out there.

There is more than food to worry about. People need money and housing. And food stamps still have income cutoffs. What are people making 8 to 10 bucks an hour going to afford daycare that costs more than they make enough. Or housing that is more than 50% of their income without factoring in utilities, other bills, keeping a vehicle running.

It's always the people that have clearly never been poor that say there are SO many resources out there. There really aren't, I know that from actual experience and data.

 

[ReligiousDiscipline]

Confused pro-abortion scum:

 

[Darkballs]

Your loser friends are losers here.

I didn't say they were my friends. Just the few guys I knew who did that were socially inept weirdos. Usually on the short side too.

 

[ElKarlo]

I didn't say they were my friends. Just the few guys I knew who did that were socially inept weirdos. Usually on the short side too.

I’d say we get a lot of them here. Most of them end up going back home after a few years. I mean most go home.
There’s tons of regular types too. I did BJJ here for years and the regular types are the ones that train. While the nerds are the ones that have terrible body types. Like way too skinny or way too fat. They end up sitting inside and playing video games all day. So it doesn’t matter where they live really

 

[sickc0d3r]

More of this bootstraps nonsense, where they try to force people to do what THEY want, and then completely turn their backs on them while they fail.

Authoritarians gonna authoritarian.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Double

 

[machidafan99]

I think it will be pushed back to individual states to decide.

However, if not a single trimester is enough time as opposed to three trimesters.

 

[Teppodama]

Access to and the right of abortion should solely be in the judgment of the woman who would be carrying the child. And on that same note, the government should have no say or control on any aspect of an individual's health. If a woman has the right to make a decision like abortion without interference, then both men and women have the right to make a decision about vaccination.

 

[Denter]

1. Society does. By bot helping those people.

2. There aren't enough people adopting to take on all these orphaned and abandoned children. You're just putting more people into the system.

3. You're comparing overt attempts to harm others with controlling the reproductive freedom of strangers. There are actual moral and logical arguments you can make against abortion. This isn't one of them.

The state has not been kind to the poor in this country. This obviously has to change, but it will mean jettisoning liberal ideas of atomized individuals "pulling themselves up" and all that, and will also require government to realize that social libertarianism is equally barbaric and damaging.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

There is more than food to worry about. People need money and housing. And food stamps still have income cutoffs. What are people making 8 to 10 bucks an hour going to afford daycare that costs more than they make enough. Or housing that is more than 50% of their income without factoring in utilities, other bills, keeping a vehicle running.

It's always the people that have clearly never been poor that say there are SO many resources out there. There really aren't, I know that from actual experience and data.

Maybe you skipped over the part of my post that talked about HUD and rental assistance (section 8).

It's actually people like you that don't know any poor people that think there isn't help available. PIL lived in section 8 apartments as a child. My parents became middle class when I was about 14 and I still have family that make < $20,000. There are programs available

 

[Mike]

The state has not been kind to the poor in this country. This obviously has to change, but it will mean jettisoning liberal ideas of atomized individuals "pulling themselves up" and all that, and will also require government to realize that social libertarianism is equally barbaric and damaging.

It's going to be impossible as long as so many people refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation. When I started working in the 90s the federal minimum wage was $5.15. Today, in 2021, it is 7.25. That's a very small increase versus inflation over a very long period of time. The government is directly culpable for not even trying to keep wages at the bottom relative to inflation. And for subsidizing businesses to create jobs that don't pay people enough to live and counting them as part of our employment statistics. Quite a lot of people on both sides seem willfully ignorant about reality and refuse to believe the facts when they're presented to them:

1: Wages for the working poor are so low they often can't escape poverty even when they're frugal. Can't pursue education because they are too busy working and can't afford it. Can't afford things like medical care, can't establish a savings that might eventually open up more options because their bills eat up most of their income.

2: Due to lack of education they're more likely to make poor decisions that keep them in poverty. A single poor decision is extremely costly because you don't have any cushion. They're not going to refrain from sex because they're poor. Not veryone is going to have the sense to use contraceptives diligently, and they aren't 100% effective.

3. Every child a poor person has sinks them further into poverty and makes it harder to accumulate any resources. The high cost of living relative to income and high cost of daycare means they will often have to choose between working or watching their children. Or leaving them unattended to get into trouble or with people that aren't trustworthy.

4. There are not enough people willing to adopt. So even if they choose to give up their child, which most don't, there aren't trustworthy stable people to give them to.

5. Children raised in poverty or the system often have negative outcomes. Not the least of which is remaining in poverty and having children of their own, so the cycle continues.

 

[panamaican]

I distinctly pro-choice.

Part of why is because I think it's absurd all of the ancillary pieces that are ignored by the anti-abortion crowd.

1) If we're going to force women to carry these children to term, why aren't we more aggressive in pro-birth support. It's unfair to the child to force them into a family circumstance that might not want them but not provide the resources to maximize their future.

2) If we don't want people having pregnancies that they don't want and want people to live with the consequences of their actions -- why aren't we criminalizing extramarital sex? From a right vs. wrong perspective, outlawing extramarital sex would minimize the type of circumstances that result in unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It seems absurd to punish the woman for being pregnant but turn a blind eye to the circumstances that created the pregnancy itself.

3) If we're going to require that women have the children and, thus, the responsibility of the child's future -- why aren't we requiring the fathers to physically raise the children alongside the women. The child's well-being turns on both parents being present, not on one parent just cutting a check. Imagine if women couldn't get abortions but men were required to house the woman and child with themselves until 18. They 2 adults don't have to get married but they have to provide a cohabitating environment.

4) This one is a stretch but imagine if a woman who wanted an abortion but couldn't get one died, what would happen if we made the father pay a wrongful death fine to the surviving parents.

All of the above are about creating the type of environment where the child's life is prioritized or the consequences of the pregnancy are shared more equally between the man and woman.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

There's no point in rehashing this debate. There is a reason why there is a massive split on it. It's because there is no true common sense acceptable outcome here.

Pro choice can make some really good and convincing arguments that keep children from being born into bad situations but they can always get shut down immediately when you bring up that pro choice is pro murder. Many of them won't send a man to death for the rape and murder of a woman while simultaneously advocating killing an unborn baby because the parents don't have a lot of money.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

There's no point in rehashing this debate. There is a reason why there is a massive split on it. It's because there is no true common sense acceptable outcome here.

Pro choice can make some really good and convincing arguments that keep children from being born into bad situations but they can always get shut down immediately when you bring up that pro choice is pro murder. Many of them won't send a man to death for the rape and murder of a woman while simultaneously advocating killing an unborn baby because the parents don't have a lot of money.

Babylon Bee covered this today lol