SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
'Nothing better than a multi-millionaire old white woman lecturing a black man about how his mother was a loser because she let him be born,' said one Twitter user


"In many cases abortions are of teenage women, particularly low income, and often Black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability, often, to continue their education to later participate in the workforce. It means that children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves." Janet Yellen, US Treasury Secretary.

"I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a Black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator. My circumstance is like so many others. Millions and millions of kids being raised in poverty by single parent households who happen to be Black. Telling Black teenage moms that there is only one alternative for them is a depressing and challenging message." Sen. Tim Scott, R - S.C.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tim-s...llen-black-abortion-comments-im-thankful-here
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,162
408
213
59
Broken Arrow
'Nothing better than a multi-millionaire old white woman lecturing a black man about how his mother was a loser because she let him be born,' said one Twitter user


"In many cases abortions are of teenage women, particularly low income, and often Black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability, often, to continue their education to later participate in the workforce. It means that children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves." Janet Yellen, US Treasury Secretary.

"I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a Black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator. My circumstance is like so many others. Millions and millions of kids being raised in poverty by single parent households who happen to be Black. Telling Black teenage moms that there is only one alternative for them is a depressing and challenging message." Sen. Tim Scott, R - S.C.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tim-s...llen-black-abortion-comments-im-thankful-here
Hey Janet, while we’re at it let’s really improve the poverty and workforce situations and just round up and kill every born child of this type of mother.
 
Dec 9, 2013
2,003
678
743
52
Why would Schumer take codifying roe to expand it? They just always got to try to get over on people.
Leftists lose it over Joe Manchin thwarting Dem abortion bill | Fox News
Liberal pundits and celebrities tweeted against Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., on Wednesday, after saying he’d vote against his party’s abortion bill.

The moderate Democrat told reporters he would oppose The Women’s Health Protection Act when it came to a procedural vote, saying it doesn’t codify Roe, but actually "expands abortion" by wiping out hundreds of state laws on abortion.

He later blocked the legislation formally.
I’m not a Schumer fan but this was strictly tactical.

1st he knew Manchin would vote no. It gave Joe a megaphone he could speak into back home in WV.

2nd he’s gambling there are a few toss up R senate seats or D seats where he got votes on the record where money can be raised, advertisements purchased and maybe sway enough women voters to flip/retain.

It won’t make a spit of difference in OK but it might help in GA or OH or PA.

It’s political theater. It’s cheap. But if it swings 1 senate race his way it worked.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,991
2,590
1,743
I know the once proud ACLU has unfortunately transformed into a political organization, but how does abortion disproportionally harm LGBTQ?

https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1524431029473316866?s=21&t=ZpPlkePmiFLbtM0q2ZgsZQ
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,332
33,380
1,743
oklahoma city
They may not yet realize it, but even at that stage there is a beating heart.
At 6 weeks an embryo is about 4-5mm long and has developed pacemaker cells that are able to create electrical impulses that can be visible to ultrasound as a flutter. It is not yet a heart. It is not formed or shaped like a heart and has no pumping function. They are cells that will form part of the heart as it develops several weeks later.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,712
7,038
1,743
Piedmont, OK
At 6 weeks an embryo is about 4-5mm long and has developed pacemaker cells that are able to create electrical impulses that can be visible to ultrasound as a flutter. It is not yet a heart. It is not formed or shaped like a heart and has no pumping function. They are cells that will form part of the heart as it develops several weeks later.
Add to that, that flutter at 6wks isn't remotely a guarantee of even making it 7 wks. My wife and I know this first hand. We weren't even comfortable announcing anything until after 12 out of fear of losing another one before that. But yeah, 6wks is TOTALLY where we should be drawing that line...:rolleyes:
 
May 4, 2011
3,854
1,700
1,743
Charleston, SC
Add to that, that flutter at 6wks isn't remotely a guarantee of even making it 7 wks. My wife and I know this first hand. We weren't even comfortable announcing anything until after 12 out of fear of losing another one before that. But yeah, 6wks is TOTALLY where we should be drawing that line...:rolleyes:
That's so rough. Pieces of that I do understand. I actually cringe when someone announces before 12 weeks. Almost everyone I know has a story like that. It's one of the things that worries me about where this will go in some states. Miscarriages are so incredibly common and that seems underappreciated. Investigating women and/or doctors for miscarriages happens other places where elective abortion is illegal. Add onto that issues about having to prove that you did have a miscarriage in order to get things like a D&C at a time that's already absurdly hard for women. I just have a really hard time seeing how reproductive care doesn't become immensely more fraught for women in places that start heavily restricting it.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2011
3,854
1,700
1,743
Charleston, SC
I’m advocating for states making their own decisions on the local level as the constitution seems to also advocate in the case of abortion and issues not specifically addressed in it. I’m also advocating for peace and common sense. Doesn’t mean I don’t have a leaning due to my faith on the issue but it means I understand there is room for laws in states that are designed for this very purpose…to be political laboratories of laws and freedom. The state laws that come of this can and will be challenged…once again I advocate for cool heads to prevail
I'm honestly struggling to understand your perspective here. The way i understand your prior statements makes it seem like you'd want those other states to end elective abortion. I get the laboratory of democracy notion for policies like taxes, most healthcare, housing policy, etc. This feels different where you seem to have framed this as more of a moral issue where I would infer you think the fetus has rights. In your scenario, wealthier women in any state will still have access to abortion care because they can travel to get them and most abortions nationwide still happen. That seems like it conflicts with some of your prior statements. Help me out with what I'm missing. Were the prior statements more about the morality of it and this is about the practicality? If so, I don't understand why this moral issue goes to the states, but not other ones (like all the ones outlined in the Alito draft). How do you make that distinction?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,623
1,929
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
And yet here you are not having taken your own life...nor, I would gather, have you asked anyone else to do it for you. Granted, on this issue many people feel as you do, but I don't think it's good to lessen the beauty of each life like you just did...who knows when we kill the person who would cure cancer...end aging...colonize outer space...or a host of other things.
I feel confident that all the bad, murderous people that didn't get born even out with the good, kind hearted people.

From the serious threats the world is currently facing from inflation, food and diesel fuel shortages, along with worldwide nuclear war for starters, I know better than ever I would not have asked to be born, if I could. I would have asked instead if I could wait until after the 2nd coming of Jesus.

The current big threat to the world, the Ukraine War need not have happened. In the 1990s, Russia requested to join with the EU and NATO. But President Clinton refused to allow it. So, Russia sure didn't appreciate it when countries on its borders were allowed to join NATO, like the Balkans and Poland. The elder Paul said world peace could be promoted through free trade. I'm gladder than ever I never voted for Clinton. Until we can be at total worldwide peace with ourselves, it's an overly tall order to think as anti-abortion lobby groups do and that all or nearly all abortion can possibly be banned.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
I know the once proud ACLU has unfortunately transformed into a political organization, but how does abortion disproportionally harm LGBTQ?

https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1524431029473316866?s=21&t=ZpPlkePmiFLbtM0q2ZgsZQ
Abortion does disproportionally harm African Americans…it’s one of the reasons it originally existed
I’m not a Schumer fan but this was strictly tactical.

1st he knew Manchin would vote no. It gave Joe a megaphone he could speak into back home in WV.

2nd he’s gambling there are a few toss up R senate seats or D seats where he got votes on the record where money can be raised, advertisements purchased and maybe sway enough women voters to flip/retain.

It won’t make a spit of difference in OK but it might help in GA or OH or PA.

It’s political theater. It’s cheap. But if it swings 1 senate race his way it worked.
Why is it that you, and others, seem to think all women are pro choice? I know a bunch of women and only a few would support such a bill as the one brought forth by Schumer. Most of them are pro life with a dash of real world experience, some who had abortions as teens only to regret it nearly daily the rest of their lives, some who think it's ok for life of the mother rape and incest among other rare instances, while others think it should be fully restricted. Point being, it's strange to me that many people on the left seem to discount women who are pro life as if they don't exist. My own mother is the one of the most radically pro life persons I know...I'm fairly certain she's a woman.
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,189
17,468
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Banned past 6 weeks unless a medical emergency and no exceptions for rape or incest. That's what Gov Stitt just signed in to law, right? All this gum flapping about stopping "abortion on demand" but THAT'S not even the major thing happening here, in our very own state (Oklahomans at least). 6 weeks, some people don't even KNOW they're pregnant yet!
Curious if there is a time frame that you would find acceptable? 8 weeks, 10, 12?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,189
17,468
1,743
Tulsa, OK
For me this is an issue of Freedom. Freedom of a person to live their life the way they want and to accept
It's an issue of freedom for me too. Freedom of a person to live. Period.

I realize that you don't view a fetus as a life....I can absolutely understand your stance on this issue from that point of view...heck if I believed the same, I would absolutely be pro choice as well. I do see it as a life though, hopefully you can understand that.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
39,145
10,958
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
It's an issue of freedom for me too. Freedom of a person to live. Period.

I realize that you don't view a fetus as a life....I can absolutely understand your stance on this issue from that point of view...heck if I believed the same, I would absolutely be pro choice as well. I do see it as a life though, hopefully you can understand that.
it is an issue of RELIGIOUS Freedom for me

In mainstream rabbinic Judaism, the Biblical passage is one of several key texts that substantiate the later rabbinic prohibition on most cases of abortion. However, others have argued that abortion is not considered murder and that "Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive." To support such a view, it is suggested that this verse shows "that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured."[2]
Rabbinic sources[edit]
Rabbinic law or halakhah permits abortion in cases of 'great need.' Most denominations interpret the pain and suffering (mental and medical/physical) of a pregnancy as sufficient: "From Other authoritative Jewish texts further emphasize that the fetus does not have the status of personhood, describing it as “mere fluid” for the first 40 days after conception and part of the pregnant person’s body thereafter. This led some rabbinic authorities to rule that, as Rabbi Jacob Emden did in the 18th century, “there is reason to be lenient [in permitting abortion]… only so as to save her from woe,” or as Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg did in 1978, abortion is a valid choice when not terminating might cause “suffering and emotional pain.”"[3]
Most Rabbinic interpretations even insist on abortion in order to the save the pregnant woman's life. The fetus is viewed as valuable, but as less than fully human. "The existing life takes precedence over the potential life."[4] Judaism puts saving a life above almost any other consideration, and it is clear which is regarded as the living person in case of pregnancy.
The importance of saving a fetus[edit]
In halakha, just as the principle of pikuach nefesh allows violating nearly all laws in order to save a human life, many laws may be violated in order to save the life of a fetus. Shabbat must be violated to save the life of a fetus.[5] A pregnant woman who develops a ravenous hunger must be fed even on Yom Kippur to prevent loss of life;[6] later authorities debate whether the situation describes involves danger to the fetus, mother, or both.
The fetus as less than fully human[edit]
Rabbinic Judaism does not regard the fetus as a full human being. While deliberately killing a day-old baby is murder, according to the Mishnah, a fetus is not covered by this rule.[7] In the reading of Biblical homicide laws, rabbinic sages argue that homicide concerns an animate human being (nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17) alone, not an embryo... because the embryo is not a person (lav nefesh hu).[8] An embryo is not deemed a fully viable person (bar kayyama), but rather a being of "doubtful viability".[9] Hence, for instance, Jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn child. The status of the embryo is also indicated by its treatment as "an appendage of its mother"[10] for such matters as ownership, maternal conversion and purity law.[11] In even more evocative language, the Talmud states in a passage on priestly rules that the fetus "is considered to be mere water" until its 40th day.[12] Elsewhere, the Talmud speaks of a "moment of determination" and a "moment of creation" in regard to different stages of the fetus.[13] Rashi explains that the moment of creation is when bones and arteries begin to form[14] and in other places he says that the "moment of creation" is at the 40th day.[15]
Modern scholars draw a sharp contrast between the theologies behind Jewish and Catholic opposition to abortion. After favorably reviewing Christian opposition to abortion, Immanuel Jakobovits writes: "In Jewish law, the right to destroy a human fruit before birth is entirely unrelated to theological considerations. Neither the question of the entry of the soul before birth nor the claim to salvation after death have any practical bearing on the subject." Although halakhic regulations works strenuously to protect the unborn child, he says that "none of these regulations necessarily prove that the foetus enjoys human inviolability." In contrast to the neo-Platonic and Christian approach, moreover, Talmudic thought does not "make any legal distinction between formed and unformed foetuses,"[16] after the 40th day. Feldman, likewise, is emphatically comparative, saying: "... while Christianity's position on abortion has raised the moral level of western civilization in this regard and has succeeded in sensitizing humanity to a greater reverence for life, it is obviously comprised, at the same time, of theological postulates which the Jewish community can not share." Feldman also points out that Talmudic debate over whether the soul achieves immortality upon conception, or at a far later stage, has little bearing on halakhic protections for the fetus because, absent a doctrine of original sin, "abortion would not interfere with the immortal rights or destiny of the foetus."[17]
Precedence of the mother's life[edit]
The fetus however, though considered "alive" to the extent that its life is protected, is not considered fully alive to the extent that if it endangered the mother's life it takes precedence. Thus if a pregnancy risks the life of the mother, the Rabbis rule that the mother's life takes precedence and that the child may be aborted so as to save the mother's life:
If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.[18]
According to the text this can be done until the point of yatza rubo (יָצָא רֻבּוֹ), that "the majority [of the fetus] has exited".[19] This is taken to refer to the emergence of the baby during childbirth.[20]
According to Rashi, the reason behind this law is that a fetus is not a viable soul (lav nefesh hu) until it is born, and killing it to save the woman is permitted.[21] Maimonides, though, justified the law not because the fetus is less than a nefesh (human being), as the Talmud held, but rather through the principle of the rodef or pursuer, "pursuing her to kill her." Schiff argues that the Maimonidean view is "unprecedented" and "without doubt, this hitherto unexpressed insight had dramatic potential ramifications for the parameters of permissible abortion." Meir Abulafia and Menachem Meiri reaffirm Rashi's view.[22]
The Noachide prohibition on abortion[edit]
Genesis 9:6 says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed...[23] The Talmud understands this verse as alluding to a fetus ("Whoever sheds the blood of man within man, his blood shall be shed") and thus prohibiting abortion to non-Jews.[24]
According to Maimonides, a non-Jew who kills "even one unborn in the womb of its mother" is guilty of murder according to the Noahide Laws, and is liable for the death penalty.[25] The penalty of having his blood spilt, is interpreted by Maimonides as referring to a punishment by the hands of heaven, and not by the courts or man to man.[26]
Tosafot (11th-13th centuries) discusses the connection between the obligations of Jews and non-Jews. Follows the Talmudic principle that there is nothing that is prohibited to the Noahide that is permissible to Jews,[27] Tosafot concluded abortion must in general be prohibited to Jews also, though the (theoretical) punishment for violations would apply only to gentiles.[28][29] Conversely, Tosafot suggests that perhaps, since Jews are permitted therapeutic abortions for the sake of maternal life, Noahide law likewise allows non-Jews to undergo therapeutic abortion. Given this near parity, rabbinic law prohibits Jews from assisting gentiles with forbidden abortions, for which the gentiles would be culpable of bloodshed.[30] Viewing Noahide law as a universalizing ethics, Sinclair states: "it is evident that the halakhah in the area of foeticide is shaped by a combination of legal doctrine and moral principle."[31]
However, the Tosafot text that applies Noahide law to forbid abortion does not go unchallenged. Another commentary in Tosafot (Niddah 44b) appears to question whether foeticide is permitted.[20][32] However this is not the plain interpretation of that Tosafot.[33]
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,712
7,038
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Curious if there is a time frame that you would find acceptable? 8 weeks, 10, 12?
I'm not opposed to there being a time frame on when a non-medical abortion must be decided by but I don't personally have a # because a) I'm not a reproductive specialist and b) every pregnancy is different. I don't think it should be all the way up to birth but I also don't think it should be before some women even know they're pregnant and where many still have a high risk of miscarriage. Like OSUPsych, early miscarriages are a LOT more common than many people realize these days and it's repulsive to think that we should be investigating women to see if they 'really' had a miscarriage or deny them access to the medications/procedures required for after-care with their miscarriage bc those are also used in abortions.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
I'm honestly struggling to understand your perspective here. The way i understand your prior statements makes it seem like you'd want those other states to end elective abortion. I get the laboratory of democracy notion for policies like taxes, most healthcare, housing policy, etc. This feels different where you seem to have framed this as more of a moral issue where I would infer you think the fetus has rights. In your scenario, wealthier women in any state will still have access to abortion care because they can travel to get them and most abortions nationwide still happen. That seems like it conflicts with some of your prior statements. Help me out with what I'm missing. Were the prior statements more about the morality of it and this is about the practicality? If so, I don't understand why this moral issue goes to the states, but not other ones (like all the ones outlined in the Alito draft). How do you make that distinction?
Because I like the way you post and your honesty and I believe a kindness others on the board have a hard time exhibiting sometimes...I will attempt to answer as open as possible.

1. I do think Baby's still in the womb have rights. I do not like the "f" word because I believe it is meant to dehumanize a Baby into something that is not yet "life," However we know now it is life. I will not use the "f" word because words matter in debate and that one isn't respectful (even if it's a scientific term because I don't think of humans as animals either) to a human life in my view.

2. I do believe that human life is given by God and we humans are not supposed to snuff it out in war, in peace, even in punishment for those who do kill (this is new for me)...This indeed is stuff of faith but IMHO also science.

3. I also believe in peace and harmony and things like the BLM riots of summer of 2020, the attack on the capital of January 6th, and this release of a brief are designed to create unrest in our nation and force change one way or another for political power. I do feel that they are mostly divisive and not really looking for the change they seek (overall) but to grab power by division.

4. Back on abortion, I'm worried about this one even more than the prior two (i.e. BLM riots, Trumpster Capital attack). The reason I am, is because I think the calmer but pro life people and states in this issue really do have a very distinct moral high ground. I believe however the very pro choice part of the other side has misread the room badly when they attempt to force an complete lack of restrictions on the taking of human life. In this way I do really believe it's nearly equal to the Dread Scott suit in terms of Roe V Wade and has the most potential to divide the country in a way we have never seen in our lifetimes...sadly. I don't want that to happen

5. However, I see handing it to the states where it should have been all along according to our highest law of the land my enable states to work out best cases for their states. Yes it will cause differences in laws and some issues for people who have made poor choices, but it might save some lives as well.

Bottom line, I'm conflicted between my moral and ethical desire for the country that I call home to be free of what I think is our greatest stain (not just abortion of an estimated 60 plus million souls, mind you, but also the lack of treating women and their babies in a way that makes them want to bring them into the world). I'm conflicted because I desire my own personal peace, which means I don't want unrest in the country in which I current live and have all my life...but I also do understand that it's wrong to do what we have done and to continue it completely unchecked isn't the right, moral, ethical, or humanitarian path to take.

@OSUPsych, thanks, and I hope all that answers the question.
 
Last edited:

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,712
7,038
1,743
Piedmont, OK
5. However, I see handing it to the states where it should have been all along according to our highest law of the land my enable states to work out best cases for their states. Yes it will cause differences in laws and some issues for people who have made poor choices, but it might save some lives as well.
I have some disagreement in the stand you're taking here. In some cases it will only affect people who have made poor choices, but in other cases states (like our very own Oklahoma) have decided that it doesn't even matter if you made the choice or not. After 6wks, unless it's a medical emergency there are NO exceptions. I don't think you can just brush those types of situations off and try to make this about poor choices when states have already taken it even further than that.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
39,145
10,958
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Religion plays no part in it for me. I was hoping we could see each other's point of view which was all I asked. I guess that's not possible after all. That's too bad.
I just want people to understand this does infringe on religious freedom for those followers of Judaism and is in direct conflict with Rabbinic Law

Thats a hard thing to try to make people accept, because those who support the overturn of RvW may not understand they are directly telling Jewish people their religion is wrong and their Rabbis are wrong.